Wow, very good post, thanks !
I really appreciate the example, and the fact that it is based on discussing with people on opinions they already agree with.
Also, I like that you came to the conclusion that we should talk about this topic by examining other options to do good and you concluded they had a lower expected impact or were too difficult fr most people (maybe you could use bullet points in this section).
Do you have data supporting the fact that people do change their diet afterwards ? That seems possible
but asking.
Also, you example does not mention fish or small animals. Are there differences in approaching them
I did a small follow up study in my early days of deep questioning, around 2016. I mailed the people I spoke with on the street, a few months after our conversation. 50% responded to my mail, 20% of those respondents said they reduced their meat consumption since our conversation. That could mean 10% of people change their behavior. That seems pretty effective for the difference making risk averse person: it requires only 5 conversations with couples to make some difference. In my recent conversations, at the end of the conversation, roughly half of people say they really intend to reduce their meat consumption, try new meat alternatives. The other half is not interested that much.
I often mention fish, eggs and shrimp, and especially mention that there is more suffering involved with smaller animals. I often mention that it is not good to replace chicken meat with eggs or fish.
Wow, very good post, thanks ! I really appreciate the example, and the fact that it is based on discussing with people on opinions they already agree with. Also, I like that you came to the conclusion that we should talk about this topic by examining other options to do good and you concluded they had a lower expected impact or were too difficult fr most people (maybe you could use bullet points in this section).
Do you have data supporting the fact that people do change their diet afterwards ? That seems possible but asking.
Also, you example does not mention fish or small animals. Are there differences in approaching them
I did a small follow up study in my early days of deep questioning, around 2016. I mailed the people I spoke with on the street, a few months after our conversation. 50% responded to my mail, 20% of those respondents said they reduced their meat consumption since our conversation. That could mean 10% of people change their behavior. That seems pretty effective for the difference making risk averse person: it requires only 5 conversations with couples to make some difference. In my recent conversations, at the end of the conversation, roughly half of people say they really intend to reduce their meat consumption, try new meat alternatives. The other half is not interested that much.
I often mention fish, eggs and shrimp, and especially mention that there is more suffering involved with smaller animals. I often mention that it is not good to replace chicken meat with eggs or fish.