I am so worried about all of my relatives. I want to warn them but also do not want to scare them. My mother has a systolic over 160 regularly, and I wonder if her heart is working overtime to try to overcome these clots.
"I want to warn them but also do not want to scare them."
It's always a tough call. There's a middle ground there, dependent on manner of presentation. I have found that offhand remarks have been effective at arousing curiosity. At the point where it's time to present a bit of supporting evidence, selecting sources that use fewer alarming modifiers in their rhetoric is best.
It helps to keep in mind that those dependent on mass media, have been inoculated with misinformation couched in hyperbole. I think it an error to attempt to challenge that inoculating narrative head-on. Patience is difficult, but I see no other way.
Remember that people are being injured and dying because of applied behavioral science. The way to bypass a conditioned response, is to avoid associating one's messaging with the response triggers.
In this way, the fear, is and when it comes, arises from within, and Stoddard's 1980's experiments in reversal of conditioning are highly instructive in this regard.
To your point; we don't wish to create suffering in our loved ones. That said, we also need to remember that fear is a response that evolved as a means of improving survival rates. In other words, it was fear that created the problem, induced fear. It is fear that reverses the problem, fear arising from discovery, coming from within and not induced by manipulation. I wish it weren't so, but we're dealing with something a bit more complex than "stove hot, ouch, do not touch."
I am so worried about all of my relatives. I want to warn them but also do not want to scare them. My mother has a systolic over 160 regularly, and I wonder if her heart is working overtime to try to overcome these clots.
"I want to warn them but also do not want to scare them."
It's always a tough call. There's a middle ground there, dependent on manner of presentation. I have found that offhand remarks have been effective at arousing curiosity. At the point where it's time to present a bit of supporting evidence, selecting sources that use fewer alarming modifiers in their rhetoric is best.
It helps to keep in mind that those dependent on mass media, have been inoculated with misinformation couched in hyperbole. I think it an error to attempt to challenge that inoculating narrative head-on. Patience is difficult, but I see no other way.
Remember that people are being injured and dying because of applied behavioral science. The way to bypass a conditioned response, is to avoid associating one's messaging with the response triggers.
In this way, the fear, is and when it comes, arises from within, and Stoddard's 1980's experiments in reversal of conditioning are highly instructive in this regard.
To your point; we don't wish to create suffering in our loved ones. That said, we also need to remember that fear is a response that evolved as a means of improving survival rates. In other words, it was fear that created the problem, induced fear. It is fear that reverses the problem, fear arising from discovery, coming from within and not induced by manipulation. I wish it weren't so, but we're dealing with something a bit more complex than "stove hot, ouch, do not touch."
Heartbreaking - truly 💔
https://youtu.be/OdlLhs3sC8A?si=PBF3tsquEgNgvMIw