Comment · Thu, May 9, 2013 · Ceretropic
US FDA to Looking into Potentially Regulating Caffeine?
What they were answering
silverhydra · 2 points
I agree with you in that things shouldn't have a get out of criticism free card and also agree that acetominophen (hell, that and the NSAIDs as well) could definitely have their risks more well known of.
I think where we differ here is when you believe that people would be receptive to being informed of the risks. The people I have worked with and met who are at most risk for abuse are exactly the same cohort who will willingly ignore information to defend their own preconceived notions. I recall that being a standard defense in psychology (although demonstrated with politics and religious opinions with preliminary evidence that it applies to health as well).
(I base most of the above off of those who need their 'Timmy's' fix up here in canada. There is an astonishing amount of illogical defense and refusal to learn when somebody attacks their caffeine source; unfortunately, its pretty common even beyond this demographic of people).
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
That means the information is not being presented to them in a useful fashion. People naturally become defensive when their actions are called into question. They base their arguments on emotion and anecdotal info right off the bat. However, that type of reaction can be mitigated by the method and tone of delivery.
It has to be positioned in such a way that allows them to still partake of the substance, and see the benefits, but then follow with the risks and ways to mitigate them. People's preconceived notions can still remain intact. However, you must make it seem like they made the decision to alter their behavior on their own. They must feel like they made the right decision based upon facts that they acquired. It's simply a strategy that doesn't get implemented often.