An open letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson (following his interview with Patrick Bet-David)
An invitation to participate in an "Exploratory Understanding" conversation
(My next substack was going to be around one of the most fruitful conversations I have had with my wife during a recent long car ride, using a conversational approach I refer to as “exploratory understanding”. I will write more about it after this letter.)
Dear Neil,
I just stumbled upon a recent interview you had with Patrick Bet-David, and was surprised at some of your statements.
The debate surrounding vaccine mandates, as well as their “safety and efficacy” is one that will only intensify over the coming months, as more and more data is becoming available and people will start looking at the data for themselves.
The purpose of this letter is to formally invite you to participate in a novel conversational approach known as “exploratory understanding”.
It really is the opposite of a debate.
The aim is not about “winning” or convincing the other party they are wrong, but rather about listening to and developing an accurate understanding of a persons “priors” (or weighted assumptions) surrounding a contentious topic .
These assumptions are often “hidden”, “subconscious” or “implicit”.
The goal is to craft pertinent questions to surface these assumptions.
Here is the twist, the questions are not necessarily ones you want to ask your interlocutor. They can be questions you want the other party to ask you, in order to help them come to a deeper understanding of your own position (!). (However, the interlocutor must answer the question first, from their own position, before giving you the opportunity to answer it for yourself).
The ultimate goal is to build an explicit model of (hidden) assumptions, with their relationships and “priors” that logically articulate and explain the position you hold on a given topic.
The topic for this conversation would be “Why would anyone question the safety and efficacy of the vaccines?”
The rules are simple. Each party needs to think of the 5 most pertinent questions to ask the other party, and make these questions known ahead of time. The questions must be “closed ended” and ask for a “rating” between 0 and 100. The participants are allowed (in fact, are strongly encouraged) to change their ratings on any previous questions during the conversation. An explanation for their change will be required.
An example question could be: How much more important is it for a publicly listed pharmaceutical company to keep increasing their year-on-year profits for their shareholders, than permanently healing their customers?
(This question has the potential to lead into some very interesting conversations as many nuances and complexities will need to be addressed and discussed in order to obtain a good understanding of each others positions. This is totally acceptable. Hint: Dialectical questions are often the best.)
During the conversation, more impromptu questions will be allowed, but all 5 questions need to be addressed and answered by both parties. (i.e. each party will answer at least 10 questions in total. 5 of their own and 5 from the other party.)
The quality of the conversation is measured by how calm and composed each party remains during the whole process.
The success of the conversation is measured by how accurately each party is able to repeat and articulate the other parties assumptions and logical deductions. Simply put, success is achieved when the other party exclaims: “Exactly!” or “That’s right!”.
(None of this is about winning or loosing, or even convincing the other side that they are wrong. It’s ALL about understanding and establishing a meaningful connection.)
If you are interested, please let me know in the comments.
Sincerely,
Kalev
Interview Observations
There is a comment you made I found startling staring at 2:09:
“There is a public health contract that you have signed implicitly as a citizen of a country where in part we depend on each other, for health, our wealth, our security and the like. And that contract is, in the best scientific evidence available at the time, if you do not get vaccinated, you will put other people in this organization at risk and that organization does not want to take that risk, so you don not have this job anymore if you decline it.”
Any concept of implicitly signing an “apriori post-facto” invisible contract that no one ever spoke about or even alluded to prior to the pandemic, as justification for ulterior actions, is an extremely dangerous (not to mention terrifying) slippery slope to embark on. (This is truly one of the most frightening concepts I have heard about in a long time. Do you really want to go there?)
Second, if the vaccines work, why would the vaccinated feel threatened by the unvaccinated? (Do you see the logical fallacy here?)
The vaccinated are protected and the unvaccinated take their own risk. Each party has made a choice the other should honor. What is the problem?
(To your surprise we actually feel the reverse. We feel we are protected and that you took a risk. The reality is, we are still here. We aren’t dying. Quite the opposite, we are noticing significant excess all cause mortality rates across all the most vaccinated countries around the world… and the media is silent. Why the double standards? They couldn’t wait to report on new COVID deaths over 2 years ago. And now, with all these excess deaths they are nowhere to be found… why?)
Finally, whatever happened to “natural immunity”? Why isn’t it discussed more?
I would love to see you and Neil engage in this exploratory understanding. I will share this on social media and I hope it gains some traction.
By and by, if Neil doesn’t turn up, would you be willing to do this exercise with someone on the same like minded wave length as Neil and let me record the conversation?
The fall back position I've heard articulated to some degree in answer to the 'if vaccines work the let those that want them take it and be protected' is that some people can't get vaccinated. Or that for some minority of people (immunocompromosed) they won't work. As such if the vaccines still reduce transmission we can protect the vulnerable if all do our part. Now that has proven false for the Covid vaccines at least to us on this side of the divide, but if in theory a vaccine did reduce transmission I still would feel it be a good thing to get vaccinated (assuming the vaccines were perfectly safe).
I guess my position is if their assumptions were correct then I would agree with their argument ethically/morally? (I actually don't know the difference between ethics and morals despite trying to learn it many times over.) That it be the right thing to do. But I don't know how far I'd be willing to force it via mandates and coercion. I do believe in my body my choice though for jobs where you could infect vulnerable people I hedge a bit. Though I'd be fine with proof of natural immunity, or testing in that case. My position on the ethics of it becomes irrelevant given that in reality most people weren't that vulnerable to severe disease, the vaccines don't stop transmission, aren't that effective, and are more dangerous to most than than infection. But I still like to try to figure out where my lines are.