Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

[4-ABBA]

I am curious as to what makes some people (a small minority) pay attention to and want to responsibly deal with BF as an oncoming Monster to reckon with--whilst the vast majority "just don't wanna hear aboout it" ??

Normal categorizations of human activity do not seem to define this differing response pattern. It seems to make no difference whether you are religious or not, politically active or not, in healthcare or not, nice or not, rich or poor, optimist / pessimist--or whatever.

What is it in humans that makes a few of them want to meet this oncoming plague--and stand together facing it--as a great "last stand" against a common enemy....and the rest cannot bear to even listen?

Those of us who have chosen to deal with and fight this Monster cannot STOP from thinking about it. The vast majority out there, however--cannot and will not even START pondering it. Why is this?

 

[Goju]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

I cannot stop thinking about it. I have not stopped since i first learned of Qinghai lake june 2005.

I have kept my best friend abreast of all the news since the very beginning. He knows more than enough to convince anyone that there ia a tremendous threat. He even reads the boards occasionally.

He has not done a stitch of prepping. I sked him to write me his reasoning since many of us here are asking this very question... he said ok... he would write me his reasoning for not prepping and i could post it.

That was almost 3 months ago.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

It's been my experience that many people won't deal with a threat, of any sort, until it's knocking at their front door or staring them in the face.

It may also relate to experience. With 24 hour stores and the easy life most lead, there is no reason to squirrel away much of anything. We trust the infamous "they" to solve all our problems, so why worry?

It's partly related to their "sphere of concern" - most people's area of concern is very small. I wish I could post the chart with IQs on the other axis. It's interesting.

.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/circle.htm​

CIRCLE OF CONCERN -- CIRCLE OF INFLUENCE
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><BIG>(excerpted from Habit 1: Be Proactive, in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, by Stephen R. Covey) </BIG></B>​

<BIG><BIG>"In looking at ways to influence and change our surroundings it is helpful to notice where we focus our time and energy. We each have a wide range of concerns--our health, our family, problems at work, the national debt, etc., and it is these things in our lives that make up our Circle of Concern.</BIG></BIG>​

<BIG><BIG>
</BIG></BIG> <O>

<BIG><BIG>As we look at those things within our Circle of Concern, it becomes apparent that there are some things over which we have no real control and others that we can do something about. We could identify those concerns in the latter group by circumscribing them in a smaller Circle of Influence.</BIG></BIG>​

<BIG><BIG>The problems all of us face fall in one of three areas: direct control (problems involving our own behavior); indirect control (problems involving other people's behavior); or no control (problems we can do nothing about, such as our past, or situational realities). A proactive approach is the first step to the solution of all three kinds of problems within our present Circle of Influence. Some people interpret proactive to mean pushy, aggressive, or insensitive, but that isn't the case at all. Proactive people are smart, they are value driven, they read reality, and they know what's needed. And they focus their efforts in the Circle of Influence. They work on the things they can do something about. The nature of their energy is positive, enlarging, and magnifying, causing their Circle of Influence to increase.</BIG></BIG>​

<BIG><BIG>One way to notice where our energy and focus is located is to distinguish between the have's and the be's. The Circle of Concern is filled with the have's: </BIG></BIG>​

• <BIG><BIG>'I'll be happy when I have my house paid off.'</BIG></BIG>​
• <BIG><BIG>'If only I had a more patient spouse...'</BIG></BIG>​
• <BIG><BIG>'If only I had better employees/co-workers...'</BIG></BIG>​
• <BIG><BIG>'If only I had a boss who wasn't so demanding...'</BIG></BIG>​

<BIG><BIG>The Circle of Influence is filled with the be's:</BIG></BIG>​

• <BIG><BIG>'I can be more patient...'</BIG></BIG>​
• <BIG><BIG>'I can be a better employee...'</BIG></BIG>​
• <BIG><BIG>'I can be more wise...'</BIG></BIG>​

<BIG><BIG>It's a character focus. Any time we think the problem is 'out there,' that thought is the problem. We empower what's out there to control us. The change paradigm is 'outside-in'--what's out there has to change before we can change.</BIG></BIG>
<BIG><BIG>The proactive approach is to change from the inside-out; to be different, and by being different to effect positive change in what's out there--I can be more resourceful, I can be more diligent, I can be a better listener, I can be a better leader.</BIG></BIG>
<BIG><BIG></BIG></BIG>
<BIG><BIG>There are things (like the weather) that our Circle of Influence will never include. But as proactive people, we can create and carry our own physical or social weather with us. We can try to accept those things that at the present we can't control, while we focus our efforts on the things that we can. Test the principle of proactivity for 30 days. Try it and see what happens. For 30 days, work only in your Circle of Influence. Make small commitments and keep them. Be a light, not a judge. Be a model, not a critic. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem."</BIG></BIG>
<BIG><BIG></BIG></BIG>
<BIG><BIG>.</BIG></BIG>​

</O>

 

[4-ABBA]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

AlaskaDenise--the wisdom in that is indeed profound and I really thank you for posting it.

However, it re-frames the issue in two ways:

(A) What then makes a person "by nature" proactive in general, and

(B) There are some quite proactive people who still don't want to deal with BF.

The community I live in is a prime example. I reside in an intentional community in a co-owned development of 24 households that have chosen to live together in true community as a small village, to learn to be more loving, caring individuals for the sake of all. (www.bartcommunity.org)

~THE MYSTERY~: So far, no one responds with any interest regarding BF....even on a low key, indirect basis. I have suggested it as a possible topic of discussion in our weekly community meetings. No takers. The well-to-do as well as those of modest means all appear to respond the same. Some have even asked me in person to not talk about it.

It's utterly baffling.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

http://www.mundanebehavior.org/issues/v3n3/shukaitis-lichtenfeld.htm

Tragedy of the Common: Markedness and the Creation of Mundane Tragedy"


Abstract: This paper explores how the integration of images of tragedy and atrocity into daily life gradually move such events from highly marked occurrences to less visible occurrences. Through a process of repetition, the moral significance of the marked atrocity becomes unmarked as it is further integrated into the symbolic interactions of daily life. This paper also discusses how this process, although not defined by the medium of transmission, can be utilized in the generation of political motivation and in the reinforcement of social norms.
.
.
.
The reality of everyday life requires the mental separation and sifting of that which is of concern from that which can be ignored. To borrow the words of Berger and Luckmann, "the reality of everyday life always appears as a zone of lucidity behind which there is a background of darkness.....

Historically and in fiction one finds that the tragedies which hold the greatest moral concern and resonate with the most compelling fervor are those that have been crystallized and cognitively assigned to the actions and death of an individual, not to the situation or framework of that individual's death. For many the Holocaust is recalled as the death of Anne Frank; for Parkinson's, Michael J. Fox; for the sacrifices of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., and so forth. The tragedy and its recollection are attended to as crystallized and embodied in the individual's tragedy and moved into the sphere of moral relevance......

One of the eventual results of constantly being bombarded by images of atrocity and suffering is that our moral sentiments suffer from compassion burnout; the sense of caring for all living things that we may have felt as children is replaced by a harsher cynicism and a rather clear delineation of who we will care about and who lies outside our sphere of concern......

The Unbearable Lightness of Passive Observation
​

And what of the moral and ethical implications of the presentation of tragedy -- does it matter if the thought patterns and norms held by those with the power to influence these presentations sway the nature of their theoretically balanced presentation? Or, more bluntly, does it matter that "all the news fit to print" effectively means "all the news fit to print as designated by the standards and concerns set by the needs of the current institutional order?"

The rather predictable answer to these questions is yes; it does matter, for we have seen that the highlighting of or inattention to an atrocity can happen for a variety of personal or political reasons, all of which we would be wise to attend to. To quote Howard Zinn, "They say Dan Rather is an anchor man?what is he anchored to? He's anchored to the establishment -- and that's the definition of an anchorperson" (Zinn). In addition, that which is put into our brains determines the outcome of our thoughts, and we cannot come to reasonable conclusions as to what should be the subject of our moral focusing based on skewed or incomplete data.

Also, by turning human suffering into a sensationalistic news story one commodifies it and turns it into that which can be sold back to us. The exchange of our human experience for ratings cheapens our existence to the point that we must put up for sale ever more exaggerated tragedy, which perpetuates a cycle that can only end in absurdity or worse.

Another consequence is perhaps less obvious: as the scope of moral focus is shifted, this newly delineated area of cognitive relevance can be used as a basis for creating political motivation and justifying or legitimizing political ideas. When images of tragedy and atrocity are presented in such a way as to locate them within our sphere of moral relevance, these tragedies or atrocities are tied to values and identity concepts held by the observer. Conversely, in a situation in which the tragedy is perpetrated by a group or power that has become marked with the status of "other," how the tragedy is attended to and whether or not it is perceived as relevant to us depends on whether or not it can be portrayed as intrinsically infringing upon the values and identity purported to be held by the perpetrators.

Control over the nature and degree of these designations can be harnessed to generate political motivation. Consider Theodor Geiger's conception of the community of pathos, or any grouping based around an ideal: "every union in collective pathos for a good, a value, take a hostile attitude toward those who espouse an opposite value conception .

Common advocacy of a good enveloped by pathos is the unanimous negation of everything which contradicts this good. The nature of antagonism, the hostile rejection of other value conceptions is implicit in the value-idea itself" (211).

Thus if the tragedy or atrocity is portrayed in a way that appears to threaten the basic values or mores of the group, and particularly if it disrupts the flow of orderly life and injects a greater degree of uncertainty into it, the discontent with such a disruption and the perceived threat to the common value can be rallied into a political imperative based upon the antagonism inherent in the ideal itself. This is particularly effective if the tragedy is connected in some ways to symbols that resonate as the cognitive crystallizations of group values, which raises the distinction between the tragic and that which is outside of the realm of moral relevance to a level of antagonism.

Through the above we can see that the images of tragedy and suffering that bombard us daily do indeed have their effects. Through them, the tragedy that we would not have known about two hundred years ago (before the advent of widespread media) has been incorporated into our daily existence. To shield ourselves from the tragic overload, we learn to delineate what is within our sphere of concern and what is not; what does not fall into the realm of our concern we can look at as merely spectators of ?the news.'

Yet through our role of passive spectators we learn to become complacent with human suffering and with existing social structures. The tragedy which was so marked to us as children fades into the gray of everyday existence, where it ceases to cause us concern and goads us into inaction. It is time to recognize the role that the presentation of tragedy and atrocity plays in our mundane existence and to take responsibility for its role in redirecting our moral focus. And from there, who knows? Maybe we'll get a new Media of the Mundane.

.

 

[MHSC]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

I agree with everything posted so far.

I would add that I think that many people just don't understand it, and therefore, don't percieve it to be a threat. I believe part of that lies with the "It can't happen to me, so why should I worry" attitude.

It is hard work following the numerous developments and staying prepared, most don't want to put forth that effort, they just want to live their life and not be bothered, but not us.... we are the diehards.

I think alot of us here would be considered the leaders or maybe the stubborn ones among peers, instead of the followers.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

...many people just don't understand it...

Very true, and it's unrealistic to expect most people to do so.

It doesn't help that 1957, 1968, etc. were given press as pandemics - NOT! I believe most people think it will be somewhere between those years and 1918, but refuse to consider that it could be worse than 1918. Where's the history to support that contention? Scientists who think that the plagues of the 1300s & earlier may have been partly influenza don't have much evidence to support that theory.

In my childhood, I constantly heard that man will never walk on the moon - it was beyond comprehension.

.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

After reading the article "Tragedy of the Common", where they say a threat must be personalized, perhaps this is why stories of individuals coping with 1918 flu have such an impact.

Perhaps stories of individuals who had the habit of maintaining a stock of staples vs. those who did not, might inspire folks to prep "for any emergency."

.

 

[MHSC]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

Some have even asked me in person to not talk about it.

Not to be mean, but it sounds like the ostrich complex. If they bury their head in the sand, it will go away and they won't have to be uncomfortable or scared by dealing with it.

 

[wdcare]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

What makes some "want" to deal with BF while most tune it out?

For me, it is my nature to live with and through difficult situations by learning what I can about them. Being informed is a stress reliever for me, but for many people it is a stress creator; these people prefer to live in denial and hope never to face the unthinkable. (I've seen enough in my life that nothing is unthinkable anymore.)

I became aware of BF several years ago when a parent of a doctor and later a spouse of a pharmacist (both family members) expressed concern about BF. Several months passed before I followed up and began to read about it. The family members planted a seed, it stayed in the back of my mind till I felt an inner direction to learn about it. Now I'm the one most concerned - but I have peace because I believe I'm doing everything I can to prepare for whatever comes.

 

[4-ABBA]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

"...many people just don't understand it...and it's unrealistic to expect most people to do so."

WHAT make some--a small minority--want to understand it--much less even spend brain time on it?

I HAVE A HUNCH:

(A) The human habit (when faced with an anomaly) is to first categorize by assumption. The normative assumption for an abnormal causitive appears to be: "This does not concern me."

(B) Once a threat to personal interest is perceived, a radical shift away from assumptions towards personal safety ensues, and planning to compensate agaist perceived personal threat results.

Observation: I believe that fear has to be invoked / elicited, before the average citizen moves from A to B.[/B]

 

[Thornton]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

Observation: I believe that fear has to be invoked / elicited, before the average citizen moves from A to B.[/b]

The preferred word is elicited.
There is a field of study on behavior change that focuses on six stages of change: 1) pre-awareness, 2) awareness, 3)commitment 4) action, 5) re-commitment and 6) maintenance. Our distress about other people's behavior can stem as a mix of our care for them and the belief that their behavior affects our lives. Whatever the motivation on our part, we must act with respect towards others and try to understand their point of view as we present information.
I recommend referral to the posts in the psychological aspects section and the exercises for preparing for phase 4.
http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9837 (Post 7 - the dates in the scenario will need to change).
JT

 

[e_armigeri]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

one explanaiton for the pardoxical behavior comes from the pysch theory of "cognitive dissonance". cognitive dissonance

http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html
"There's no success like failure...." -- Bob Dylan, Love Minus Zero

Cognitive dissonance is a theory of human motivation that asserts that it is psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions. The theory is that dissonance, being unpleasant, motivates a person to change his cognition, attitude, or behavior. This theory was first explored in detail by social psychologist Leon Festinger, who described it this way:

Dissonance and consonance are relations among cognitions that is, among opinions, beliefs, knowledge of the environment, and knowledge of one's own actions and feelings. Two opinions, or beliefs, or items of knowledge are dissonant with each other if they do not fit together; that is, if they are inconsistent, or if, considering only the particular two items, one does not follow from the other (Festinger 1956: 25).

He argued that there are three ways to deal with cognitive dissonance. He did not consider these mutually exclusive.

1.

One may try to change one or more of the beliefs, opinions, or behaviors involved in the dissonance;
2.

One may try to acquire new information or beliefs that will increase the existing consonance and thus cause the total dissonance to be reduced; or,
3.

One may try to forget or reduce the importance of those cognitions that are in a dissonant relationship (Festinger 1956: 25-26).

For example, people who smoke know smoking is a bad habit. Some rationalize their behavior by looking on the bright side: They tell themselves that smoking helps keep the weight down and that there is a greater threat to health from being overweight than from smoking. Others quit smoking. Most of us are clever enough to come up with ad hoc hypotheses or rationalizations to save cherished notions. Why we can't apply this cleverness more competently is not explained by noting that we are led to rationalize because we are trying to reduce or eliminate cognitive dissonance. Different people deal with psychological discomfort in different ways. Some ways are clearly more reasonable than others. So, why do some people react to dissonance with cognitive competence, while others respond with cognitive incompetence?

 

[4-ABBA]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

So, why do some people react to dissonance with cognitive competence, while others respond with cognitive incompetence?

Brilliant question.

Wonder if it has something to do with people having developed in their lives up to that point, a strong sense of being personally responsible of what gets into their brains / thoughts.

In other words, perhaps those who used to swallow truth claims fed to them by "authorities"--without chewing on it first--no longer buy into truth claims without first picking thru them carefully?

Personally, I used to believe most everything (truth claims) of people I looked up to. I swallowed it as "the truth." I did this from childhood up thru my mid 20's. Doing this got me into a huge number of life crises....and I slowly came to realize that not only were "they" quite often wrong--but it was MY fault for not having sifted thru it myself first.

In short: for some, pain brought on by willful ignorance can be a great teacher, and ignite the brain into analyzing / examining truth claims for oneself.

 

[LMonty]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

Myriad reasons, I think. First, and foremost the answer I hear is "I dont want to think about that". Then there's "that cant happen, because _________".(insert assumption du jour) Then, theres always my special favorite "But _________ told me that it was not a problem/couldnt happen/would be OK/ or other destressing kinda assumption"

So, theres the intital "I dont wanna hear/talk about it" which is AFAIK, denial in action... I've noted these are ususally folks who have already heard soem concrete info, and do realize that it could be a problem.

The other two are a little trickier to get a handle on, and I usually have to expolore further to figure out on an individual basis. theres the honest, almost confused reply of " It cant happen" which I think is based on either early denial, or an honest missasumption or misinformation. Usually from soemone else, and the person has done little research of their own. Several times its been "yeah, read about it in the paper, but you know, it may have been bad before, but modern medicine is better now, and its just the flu" So that tracks directly to lack of information. Sometimes its pure lack of info, and the person in that situation seems to be easier to warn than the ones who continue to argue that its not possible "because".

Those folks I think are denial based, and holding onto it. Ive actually talked to several doctors that fit in this category "it just cant be that bad, we'll be busy, but it cant be like `1918 again". That was last year....and the refrain at that time was "if it really could get like that, then the CDC (or other medical group) would tell us". Some of that may be failure to accept that relevant info might come from any avenue other than sources they consider as expert-and I heard it stated, I just wont believe that until "they say so, and its just scaremongering to say otherwise" More denial? I think so. I dotn think they think so, though

So, thats denial and misinformation as two possiblitites. Some folks really just dont believe things until their ackonowledged "experts" (information sources they trust- it varies by the individual, and could be family/friend/official organization/goverment/Oprah etc). When the warnings finally do come from their experts they will then need to process and react- and denial may be an intial reaction. Some may subconsiously interpret this as they are now in a position where they will have to acknowledgge they were "wrong" not to act earlier, and thats hard for many to do.

The other big probelm, I think, is cultural. We have been very, very lucky, in the industrialized world, to live in a situation where nothign horrible has really every happened to us. Besides AIDS (which most people could rationalize away unless they were in the major risk group- and its easy when a personal behaviour is connected to the risk) there hasnt been a significant epidemic since polio which basically ended int he 50's. So those of us 50 or less have ever seen it. There are very few who recall the time before antibiotics. Infectious disease is not culturally percieved as a real life threatening risk-those that do get a fatal ID, its either its because of risky behaviour, or "lousy luck". Really easy to develop a total lack of understanding that a pandemic could happen.Another guess on my part-many react to the potential of pandemic the same way they do to any other great culture busting risk- like a massive asteroid strike or global thermonuclear war: "Theres nothing I can do about it, and the risk is so small that it could happen in my lifetime, and I cant change it- so why worry? How 'bout them Bears???" (allusion to a football team performance- it often seems that discussing something like that results in the other person changing the subject pretty quick. I'm guessing that means they are uncomfortable with it, or truly, completely unconcerned.)

I think the early adopters are a bit different, in a few respects. Observing the flu boards for awhile now, my guess is that most would have one or more of the following traits:
1. We can concieve and believe that change can happen. I would bet that more than average numbers have had adverse experiences in their lives that have opened their eyes to the knowledge "bad things can happen")
2. We tend to be "information seekers" by nature.
3. We are less likely to accept the statements of others (on things of import to us), without independant verification. I would guess that is also a function of age and experience- if we did a survey of most flu watchers, I wouldnt be surprised to find the chronological age and education level is fairly high.
4. Less internally focused; either due to nature, or circumstance that allows us to look outward and actually process information or situations we arent personally involved with at that time.
5. Optimistic outlook. Yea, that seems odd- but we concieve a disaster, and beleive we can not only prepare to survive, but many feel they can help others, and that preparation and knowledge is going to make adifference. I think thats an optimistic outlook- not unrealistic opeimism, but actual. Even "gloom and doomers" who can concieve of bad things- if they are actuially following and prparing and taking steps to make it beter, thats optimism. Pessimists tend to say "why bother, its so bad noting I can do matters"
6. Self confidence. Goes with #5. Theres really is a level of belief in self and abilities to make a difference, even if its only in personal sphere of influence. There's even another level-those who believe they can make a difference or need to try, and step out and do something that extends beyond their own sphere of influence. Quite a few folks on the boards are doing that, even if they dont realize it.7. There are problaby other characteristics that matter- soem of us may have personal psychological traits that affect our response to this situation, especially if we've never reacted to threats before.
8. Communicators. It doesnt matter if we are good at it or not, we are often still the type of personality that interacts. Is it possible that online at least, we tend to be the more extroverted types? We think better when we communicate, we explore ideas and information through that communication; rather than the introverted type of personality, who processes information internally and usually pretty quietly. Those that are following the situation fairly closely but dont interact would not fit this criteria (unless they have another reason) but may well fit some of the others.

Just some thoughts (and they may well be worth what you paid for them! LOL). Theres been some seminal research on survivalist, but not all of it fits here- because of the focus on the stereotypical "hide in the woods wait for the world to end" antisocial stereotype. Darn shame, it gives the rest of us a bad name we dont deserve. In reality, we are all planning and working to survive,and help others do the same. We desperately hope it wont be necessary. We do take some pleaure from self reliance, even if its not needed. We value the luxuries and pleaures in our lives, now often more than we would have before we learned they could be at risk. We work to keep them. Its really differnet than that stereotype survivalist thing, and I would love to see some sociological and psychological research done on those who are more like us.

 

[Goju]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

LMonty - just described me to a tee.

Very freaky.

 

[Laidback Al]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

Very insightful, LMonty.

 

[standingfirm]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

LMonty: Wow, I didn't think that I could fit so neatly into a characterization. I find this comforting. After so many years of seeing myself as "out of step" (even though I am marching to the right tune) beginning to have insight into some reasons why I am hearing the tune clearly while others faintly or not at all, allows me to march to the tune that I hear even more boldly.

Right now, I am thankful for each and every "challenge" that I have faced in my life. They may have been difficult at the time but had I not faced them then, I would be totally incapable of what I MUST accomplish now.

Thanks all for this thread.

Q: How do we play the tune louder or more clearly?

 

[LMonty]

Re: Discussion: What makes some *want* to deal with BF--but most tune it out?

Q: How do we play the tune louder or more clearly?

That's the 64 thousand dollar question! LOL

I'm trying to plant seeds. I drop a few words a few thoughts as I can. It avoids "topic fatigue" for those in denial, if they're just not ready to absorb it. This might work for some. Even if you dont get to see the "Ahhh" moment, it might just be the seeds you plant that make the difference between someone who gets it or doesnt....

Otherwise, I think its helpful to think about the mental place the person you're approaching is coming from. Ive seen better results with that, so far. Are they in denial? It sometimes helps to explore feelings then, and then leave it go for awhile if you see them getting uncomfortable or stressed. I'm the bull in the china shop type, this is difficult for me! I want to keep pressing- and that hasnt worked well.

If its really just lack of information, I've found sharing info and sources helpful. Then I back off to give them time to process and investigate. I check back and see if they have (I'd venture to guess less than half the time so far!), and its been a good touch to give a copy of a good article at that point, if you know the person and it seems appropriate. Choose one that cocers an interest or item of importance to them, so its personal and relevant.

Ive had beeter luck in converasations if I follow Sandman and Lanards suggestions on talking about risk. Its been amazing the results Ive found if use the see-saw method. Unless they are really coping with deep denial, its amazing to me how often the person will react to the suggestions of the opposing positon. We must be very contrary by human nature! LOL

I was at meeting last week, and talking to 4 others at the table when the subject came up (mea culpa). I got much further with a few "I dont know how likely that is, but wouldnt it be awful? Ive bene thinking what I would need ot do to avoid_____" "What would happen if's" and such. I find it fascinating that its actually possible to, at least sometimes, get the other person to tell YOU, what you want to tell them...and I'm guessing they are more likely to process and own it and act on it if they have stated it themselves.

I dont know for sure, what will work, whats the best method. My guess is "it depends" on the person, what stage they are in, and situation that the conversation is occuring in. A lot may depend on wher ethey are in the Heirarchy of Needs, but I'm not real sure about that- and it can be very very hard to determine that....

We've talked about this a lot over the years. I think that we will have more opportunities (and perhaps different communications challenges!) when the federal and state goverments start encouraging serious preps. I hope we continue to share what does and doesnt work- i need to learn so much more!

Thanks for the nice comments, guys. They made my night. The support of each other here is so important to me, I dont think I could accomplish very much without it.