The article mentions unwashed hands is STILL a problem with physicians TODAY - with all the years of training, knowledge, books, microscopes that can see germs in action and most importantly, hundreds of years of evidence.
Changing people's minds is not easy - then or now. Shaming works way better than just talking. You can see how shaming has helped the cause of open source, black lives matter, pollution... But even with multiple champions, these causes are struggling, not a runaway success as you'd expect.
Compare this man to Richard Stallman - see any similarities? I'm sure Stallman would have been remanded to mental institution if he lived in the 1800s.
Even if this doctor was a giant asshole, I applaud his use of scientific-ish methods - methodologically cutting off unlikelies until arriving at the root cause - unwashed hands.
> Changing people's minds is not easy - then or now. Shaming works way better than just talking. You can see how shaming has helped the cause of open source, black lives matter, pollution... But even with multiple champions, these causes are struggling, not a runaway success as you'd expect.
I keep seeing this narrative, that shaming is the most effective strategy, and it continues to puzzle me. You're literally saying this in response to an example of shaming not working, and the examples you're using are pretty bad examples of shaming working.
Everything I see here is that putting the truth in front of people is what works. The video of George Floyd is powerful because it shows us the truth. I've seen more of my white friends realize their privilege in 8 minutes and 46 seconds of video than I've seen in decades of shaming people over dog whistles.
If shaming works, when why hasn't it worked yet? Where are the results?
>I keep seeing this narrative, that shaming is the most effective strategy
I never said it's the most effective strategy. I said, it's more effective than just talking.
>If shaming works, when why hasn't it worked yet? Where are the results?
As far as i'm concerned, this question is like someone doubting the existence of gravity. The effects of shaming is all around us.
Fashion is an industry that built its foundations on shaming. Kids are shamed into buying iphones, and designer shoes. Millions of kids are being shamed into early sex (ashamed of being virgins), and trying out drugs to be deemed COOL.
For programmers - PHP programmers are being shamed right here on HN.
When Google and other high profile companies do something really stupid like locking someone's account unjustly or some new policy, Twitter and Hacker news use shaming to get these guys to speedily reverse course.
>The video of George Floyd is powerful because it shows us the truth.
Isn't the video in question is an example of shaming - the police?
Why do you think police, FBI and the rest works hard to bar public access to ALL their activities?
Shaming someone hardly ever changes their mind; it can change their behavior, but usually only their public behavior.
>> The video of George Floyd is powerful because it shows us the truth.
> Isn't the video in question is an example of shaming - the police?
The people whose minds were changed by the video were people horrified by it, not people shamed[1].
> Why do you think police, FBI and the rest works hard to bar public access to ALL their activities?
Because all this shame hasn't changed their mind a single bit, it just makes them want to hide what they are doing.
----
1: Most police already knew shit like this happens, and most of them are already ashamed about it. However, they also know that their reports better include whatever makes the department the least legally liable, rather than the truth. Reporting a truth that causes the department to have to settle a lawsuit for more than they thought they could is the #1 career limiting move a cop can make.
Reporting bad behavior of coworks is a tough call to make in the best of situations. Mix in the following and it takes people of unusually strong moral-fiber to do it:
1. You will get fewer hours of OT (a de-facto pay-cut)
2. You will be passed over for promotion down the road because of it.
3. The coworker you reported on is very unlikely to be fired so you will be working along side them, quite possibly for many years.
Shaming is a very effective technique to maintain cohesion in a social group, but a lot of your examples are using the word wrongly. If I were to guess, you might be confusing 'shaming' with 'talking about problems' which are not the same thing at all. Shaming is an emotional and social phenomenon, linked to concepts of guilt and shortcoming.
Google & other companies for example are incapable of feeling shame - or indeed any other emotional response. They are incapable of making decisions due to a sense of shame. Therefore shaming is not especially effective against them.
> Fashion is an industry that built its foundations on shaming.
This one in is also off target. Fashion isn't built on shame at all. Fashion is built on giving people with wealth an ability to show it and to maintain a repertoire of signals to communicate with. The fashion industry is built on aspiration. Some people might feel ashamed that they aren't very important to the world, but that isn't where the fashion industry makes its major profits.
> Isn't the video in question is an example of shaming - the police?
It is evidence of activity that looks criminal. Police feeling ashamed isn't the thing that is going to drive the response there. I don't think anyone particularly cares if the police feel ashamed or not, they want that not to happen again and are going to be more than happy to make legal/political changes to do so. Sharing that video wasn't done informatively, it was done as a call to action to do something.
> As far as i'm concerned, this question is like someone doubting the existence of gravity.
Please leave comments like this out in the future. It adds nothing to the conversation, and escalates people's emotions pointlessly.
Every single example you've given is a very complex situation where shaming isn't the most relevant thing:
> Fashion is an industry that built its foundations on shaming.
Maybe in part, but there's a lot more going on there--a lot of it is just getting stuff in front of people. The original idea of having a skinny model was actually not about body shaming people or even about the model being attractive (that wasn't what was considered attractive at that time). It was about having someone the clothes hang off of so that the focus on the clothes and not the person (this became complicated as standards of attractiveness changed).
> Kids are shamed into buying iphones, and designer shoes.
Shamed by wbom? I don't see much ads these days, but the last ad I saw for an iPhone was literally just them showing a disembodied hand using the iPhone to do something. They have a damn good product and they know it, so to sell it they just show that it's good. No shaming needed.
Designer shoes: shame isn't the emotion I'd associate with that. Pride, actually, makes more sense.
> Millions of kids are being shamed into early sex (ashamed of being virgins),
If we're comparing things to gravity, sex drive is pretty arguably a force of nature. We've had millions of years of the genes for people who don't want to have sex literally removed from the gene pool.
> and trying out drugs to be deemed COOL.
Maybe they're trying them out because they think they're cool? Because they're curious? Because doing drugs obviously is fun (at least in the short term)?
I've been in some pretty druggie cultures (i.e. Burning Man, lots of similar smaller stuff), and literally never felt shamed because I didn't do drugs.
> For programmers - PHP programmers are being shamed right here on HN.
Where?
> When Google and other high profile companies do something really stupid like locking someone's account unjustly or some new policy, Twitter and Hacker news use shaming to get these guys to speedily reverse course.
This may be the best example on your list. But realize that that public shaming a company whose business is based on users, isn't targeted at the company, it's targeted at users. So the applicability here is pretty limited.
> Isn't the video in question is an example of shaming - the police?
No, it's very much not.
We're not trying to make the police feel ashamed. We're trying to put the police who did that in jail, and we're doing that by making sure that everyone knows they are murderers, because they can see it. And in a larger sense, we're not trying to shame police so they behave better: it's clear the police aren't going to change their behavior. It's to show people that the idea that police protect and serve is wrong, so that we can persuade people to reduce the power we give to police and have more accountability, without the permission of police.
Do you really think the police feel shame about any of this? If so, they certainly haven't acted on their shame. Their reaction has not been shame, it's been defiance and violence. Shame has no relevance here.
>You can see how shaming has helped the cause of open source, black lives matter, pollution...
I think there's a stronger argument to be made that shaming has hurt each of these causes more than it has ever helped. If you want to make people antagonistic towards you, belittling or demonizing them for not holding ${belief} is a great strategy. Public shaming is a threat-by-example to the broader community that certain behaviors and beliefs are forbidden. It doesn't encourage individuals to seek the truth, whatever it is, but to conform to safe beliefs (and if you're playing the status game, evangelizing those beliefs is a great fast-track to power).
Semmelweis may well have succeeded if he hadn't shamed people with an air of absolute certainty (an attitude which seems to be increasingly in-vogue for any kind of popular issue today) but had acknowledged the complexities of the problem and focused on ascertaining the truth.
There's a theory popular with jaded biologists that neckties alone may have killed more people than some minor genocides.
And the failure to perfect the practice of hand-washing is somewhat easy to understand: it's tedious, especially when done dozens of times per day. Some people suffer skin irritation. The cause of any infection can almost never be traced, making it hard to learn and/or punish the guilty.
Banning neckties is a rather binary policy decision, and compliance would be extremely easy to monitor. One would think people with advanced academic degrees would see the upside, and don't need to signal status with superfluous items of clothing in addition to that doctorate.
Ties are pretty mobile and can easily brush against a patient or instrument, especially if the doctor is leaning forward. Unlike other clothing, they are also rarely washed and they seem less essential than, say, pants.
A few studies have isolated MRSA and other nosocomial nasties from ties. However, it's unclear how much of an actual risk this is, and ties are thought to convey some sense of professionalism that makes the patients take medical advice more seriously and...tradition (ugh). This bit from The Lancet has some back-and-forth about it.
There was an article that explored this question many years ago, and IIRC, the answer was because the surgeons were in a hurry and didn’t have much time. This problem isn’t as common today with the ubiquity of hand sanitizer dispensers.
Also, try washing and desinfecting your hands 20 times a day. Your skin will start causing problems after a few days, usually dryness, itching, rashes, blisters. Cream helps a bit, but not always. Medical personnel invariably do have skin problems on hands and forearms.
> Shaming works way better than just talking. You can see how shaming has helped the cause of open source, black lives matter, pollution
It "works" but has hidden bad side effects. Shaming is a terrible way to enact change and should only be a last resort as it sows seeds of resentment and discord that push people to political extremes. It's like saying violent crusades are the most effective form of Christian missionary work. Technically true in terms of measured "conversions", but... also the side effects are really bad.
Plus, if you shame people and you turn out to be wrong, well... what should your punishment be?
> Changing people's minds is not easy - then or now. Shaming works way better than just talking.
Tell that to the "masks are oxygen-depriving freedom infringement devices" set. I mean... I agree that on the margins most people aren't nuts and even if they don't understand masks will put one on just to avoid a scene. But... yeah, we haven't come very far, have we?
Is there any reason we should ever stop wearing masks? From a public health perspective I think they are here to stay - possibly for the rest of my life.
There are a lot of more or less inconvenient things that people can do to improve societal safety. Never drive your car over 40 mph. Don't let subway cars get so crowded. And so forth.
Arguably masks fall on the less inconvenient side of things but they're not even the norm in Asia during normal times in countries which have had their share of epidemics. So, no, I don't expect they'll be the norm most places and that will make some people unhappy.
That's the way it works in most of east asia. People who are sick, or might be sick, or have the sniffles will put a mask on when they go out.
But no, no one wants to wear these full time forever. The collective danger[1] of a pandemic makes them worth the inconvenience. No one would make that trade for routine seasonal flu.
[1] Which, it has to be pointed out, even on this site, and even after months of pandemic spread, is not remotely the same thing as the personal risk to the mask-wearer.
> That's the way it works in most of east asia. People who are sick, or might be sick, or have the sniffles will put a mask on when they go out.
Celebrities also wear them if they don't want to be recognized, and people wear them on planes because it's thought to help with dehydration. The important thing is that it's normalized, so you don't stand out by doing it.
I think shaming is never acceptable, under any circumstance. It's trying to make someone feel emotional pain in order to force them to do something. It's basically applying torture, except instead of physical pain it's emotional pain.
> It's trying to make someone feel emotional pain in order to force them to do something.
But the "something" in this case is "not kill people". I'm sorry, I can't understand that absolutism. If I can save a million people by making some innocent babies cry from an immunization shot, I should be able to make their parents angry by shaming them into wearing a mask or washing their hands, right?
> But the "something" in this case is "not kill people".
Yes it's a worthwhile cause to speak up for!
> I'm sorry, I can't understand that absolutism.
I don't believe in 'the ends justify the means' except in some limited cases such as an imminent existential threat.
> If I can save a million people by making some innocent babies cry from an immunization shot, I should be able to make their parents angry by shaming them into wearing a mask or washing their hands, right?
I think you should use your logic to campaign for legislation or regulation, not try to force people by applying pain.
>So call the police or begin a private prosecution if a law is being violated.
You could certainly call the police on someone violating the mask mandate, but wouldn't calling the police also result in "mental health pain" for the perpetrator? Calling the police immediately would be extreme, and more likely someone is going to ask staff to intervene and ask the perpetrator to put on a damn mask, but that too will cause shame for the perpetrator.
All you're doing is is outsourcing who is causing the shame, but you're still the originating source of it.
Yes, and what do you imagine happens eventually if you don't pay it? Or happens right away if you argue about it, or if they decide to feel threatened by anything you say or do?
Police involvement is often a spectacle, and attracts a lot of negative attention. Many would consider having the police called on them embarrassing/shameful/stressful/mental health pain.
> I think you should use your logic to campaign for legislation or regulation, not try to force people by applying pain.
Campaigning for legislation or regulation is trying to force people through the use of the government's monopoly on physical violence. How is that less harmful than expressing negative judgment and hoping that someone feels sufficiently bad about being judged that they change their actions?
Your argument seems to be that making someone feel bad is worse than physically harming them.
The article mentions unwashed hands is STILL a problem with physicians TODAY - with all the years of training, knowledge, books, microscopes that can see germs in action and most importantly, hundreds of years of evidence.
Changing people's minds is not easy - then or now. Shaming works way better than just talking. You can see how shaming has helped the cause of open source, black lives matter, pollution... But even with multiple champions, these causes are struggling, not a runaway success as you'd expect.
Compare this man to Richard Stallman - see any similarities? I'm sure Stallman would have been remanded to mental institution if he lived in the 1800s.
Even if this doctor was a giant asshole, I applaud his use of scientific-ish methods - methodologically cutting off unlikelies until arriving at the root cause - unwashed hands.