I’d like to hear what Kelley learned from you- you shared what you learned from her and how some of your perceptions changed after speaking with her but I am curious what she learned from speaking with you.
I’d like to hear what Kelley learned from you- you shared what you learned from her and how some of your perceptions changed after speaking with her but I am curious what she learned from speaking with you.
I second this motion. While I applaud the inclusion of a different viewpoint (and I believe she did have some good points), it would also be informative to know what she may have learned from the conversation.
"You shared what you learned from her..." - I had a slightly different take on this. YLE is sharing what Kelley *said* to her, not necessarily what YLE *learned.*
I'm defining "learning" as changing one's position on a previously held belief. It's unclear whether YLE's position on any of these points has changed based on her discussion with Kelley (especially if she was tempted to insert a rebuttal).
Listening to a person and learning from them are two different things.
What we (PH professionals) need to learn is how to better communicate. I know that every time I interact with someone like Kelley, with diametric views to mine, I can learn something even if I don’t agree with all they say. I can’t speak for Katelyn, obviously, but I suspect there are internalized lessons she took from the discussion. At least, that’s the impression I got from the piece.
Since I’ve posted this comment, I’ve been debating what it means to learn from others. Is it enough to listen and understand, or must one be willing to change long-held beliefs?
At a minimum, I think we must listen with a willingness to change our beliefs (even if our beliefs remain unchanged after the conversation).
We all can sense when we are talking to someone who is willing to listen but isn’t willing to challenge or change their beliefs. It’s especially hard to admit we were wrong, especially when our beliefs have led to policy that has harmed others. Cognitive dissonance and all.
Learning is not an instantaneous process. However, some of us do internalize conversations like the one referenced here, and consider it when we revisit these issues. Katelyn has demonstrated an ability to change based on new knowledge repeatedly, or that’s my impression based on following her writings for several years now. I know I will be reviewing these points, and will try to pay more attention to the points Kelley made. I’m not likely to completely revise my considered opinions, but I’ve stated for a long time that the primary failing of public health professionals over the last 4 years has been in our communication methods and presentation. For the most part, PH personnel could intercommunicate but we did not meet the public’s needs.
Of course, we also had to contend with he whole public world looking over our collective shoulder as we attempted to understand and interpret data and create recommended policy, with critiques of the process sometimes happening in real time. So, we were fielding questions and criticism from the public and participating in the sometimes cantankerous process of determining what we thought we knew.
We had policy recommendations, especially early, that could have been better if we'd had more/better information but we were working from a pandemic/outbreak plan that was predicated on an H5 influenza outbreak, misunderstood aerosol transmission dynamics, had been abandoned by the administration at the outset and seen the appropriate planners scattered to different agencies or completely ousted, and were trying to reassemble a plan for an airborne, apparently respiratory viral agent we knew nothing about. Those policies were ONLY wrong in retrospect. That said, PH made recommendations, politicians derived policies but made sure PH was prominently mentioned as the origins of said policies even if we had not phrased things as the politicians did.
So, in a lot of ways, yes, we made errors but were doing the best we could with the tools we had available at the time. I've said it here, and on other forums: I had days where my professional opinion could change more than once in a 24 hour period as new data and articles came in that were evaluated to be meaningful and trustworthy. My recommendations initially were not "wrong" but could be superceded by new information and knowledge.
But shouldn’t that “learning” go both ways? Because if only one person is “learning” (however you want to define it), then it’s not much of a discussion- more of a lecture.
Discussion to me implies both parties take away or learn something.- I’d like to know what Kelley took away from discussion that may have changed her perceptions/thoughts/opinions.
I’d like to hear what Kelley learned from you- you shared what you learned from her and how some of your perceptions changed after speaking with her but I am curious what she learned from speaking with you.
I second this motion. While I applaud the inclusion of a different viewpoint (and I believe she did have some good points), it would also be informative to know what she may have learned from the conversation.
"You shared what you learned from her..." - I had a slightly different take on this. YLE is sharing what Kelley *said* to her, not necessarily what YLE *learned.*
I'm defining "learning" as changing one's position on a previously held belief. It's unclear whether YLE's position on any of these points has changed based on her discussion with Kelley (especially if she was tempted to insert a rebuttal).
Listening to a person and learning from them are two different things.
What we (PH professionals) need to learn is how to better communicate. I know that every time I interact with someone like Kelley, with diametric views to mine, I can learn something even if I don’t agree with all they say. I can’t speak for Katelyn, obviously, but I suspect there are internalized lessons she took from the discussion. At least, that’s the impression I got from the piece.
Since I’ve posted this comment, I’ve been debating what it means to learn from others. Is it enough to listen and understand, or must one be willing to change long-held beliefs?
At a minimum, I think we must listen with a willingness to change our beliefs (even if our beliefs remain unchanged after the conversation).
We all can sense when we are talking to someone who is willing to listen but isn’t willing to challenge or change their beliefs. It’s especially hard to admit we were wrong, especially when our beliefs have led to policy that has harmed others. Cognitive dissonance and all.
Learning is not an instantaneous process. However, some of us do internalize conversations like the one referenced here, and consider it when we revisit these issues. Katelyn has demonstrated an ability to change based on new knowledge repeatedly, or that’s my impression based on following her writings for several years now. I know I will be reviewing these points, and will try to pay more attention to the points Kelley made. I’m not likely to completely revise my considered opinions, but I’ve stated for a long time that the primary failing of public health professionals over the last 4 years has been in our communication methods and presentation. For the most part, PH personnel could intercommunicate but we did not meet the public’s needs.
Of course, we also had to contend with he whole public world looking over our collective shoulder as we attempted to understand and interpret data and create recommended policy, with critiques of the process sometimes happening in real time. So, we were fielding questions and criticism from the public and participating in the sometimes cantankerous process of determining what we thought we knew.
One of the points Kellie is making is that many PH policies were wrong - which is something more than just a communications problem.
We had policy recommendations, especially early, that could have been better if we'd had more/better information but we were working from a pandemic/outbreak plan that was predicated on an H5 influenza outbreak, misunderstood aerosol transmission dynamics, had been abandoned by the administration at the outset and seen the appropriate planners scattered to different agencies or completely ousted, and were trying to reassemble a plan for an airborne, apparently respiratory viral agent we knew nothing about. Those policies were ONLY wrong in retrospect. That said, PH made recommendations, politicians derived policies but made sure PH was prominently mentioned as the origins of said policies even if we had not phrased things as the politicians did.
So, in a lot of ways, yes, we made errors but were doing the best we could with the tools we had available at the time. I've said it here, and on other forums: I had days where my professional opinion could change more than once in a 24 hour period as new data and articles came in that were evaluated to be meaningful and trustworthy. My recommendations initially were not "wrong" but could be superceded by new information and knowledge.
Yep, a lot of people listen but cling to their narrative. I did for several years.
But shouldn’t that “learning” go both ways? Because if only one person is “learning” (however you want to define it), then it’s not much of a discussion- more of a lecture.
Discussion to me implies both parties take away or learn something.- I’d like to know what Kelley took away from discussion that may have changed her perceptions/thoughts/opinions.