Where do prejudices have their roots?
Let’s start with the fact that all sorts of prejudices are not new to humanity; they are as old as humanity itself. Most of them have an ideological rather than a scientific basis and serve to justify society’s sentiments, the mood for some time.
@neryzd
Sociologist Pareto saw the problem of such judgments, which were then reinforced by human actions, in the fact that some scientists made their conclusions in such a way that they could not be verified experimentally, in such a way that their reliability was based on the scientist’s word, often based on theorizing, and not on descriptions of real facts. The origin of this kind of research and prejudice has led to concepts that have nothing to do with science, such as the notion of “race”.
The scientist sees the source of such judgments in the objective reality of the past, to which subjective prejudices have been layered over time. Pareto called the actions based on these prejudices illogical. The logical action for him was an action that had a specific purpose and had both objective and subjective characteristics; that is, he sees the same action equally as the one who performs it and the one who looks at it from the side (for example, a carpenter makes a door and someone looking at it understands that he is making a door). Returning to illogical actions, according to the above sociologist, confusing are actions in which:
1. There is no objective or subjective purpose (here he refers to habits, e.g., when a person is smoking because they used to)
2. Has no objective purpose but is subjective (this category includes superstitions, magic, e.g., believing that evaporating a particular substance will heal one)
3. There is an objective goal, but there is no subjective (here, we are talking about all kinds of actions based on instincts, e.g., choosing 510 thread battery because everyone does so).
4. There are objective and subjective objectives that do not coincide (for example, the vape pen that was invented to protect people from the harms of smoking ultimately harms them).
In fact, the task of people is to overcome the distance between the objective and subjective goals of their actions, and then we can talk about logical, reliable, scientific judgments.
Why do the biases towards vapes appear?
False judgments about vaping are because this industry is developing very rapidly. And often, people who talk about vaping do not have time to hear and see this development and draw conclusions based on thoughts about smokers or thoughts about outdated vape technology.
According to the Pareto system, society always adds something new and subjective to the old truth about vaping, thus producing for others some prejudices and myths that are not subject to scientific criticism. So to better understand how these prejudices popped up, let’s look at the most common examples of the emergence and spread of biases. And the spread of intolerance causes a massive overreaction of ordinary people.
How is the overreaction expressed?
Many people are concerned with the issue of vaping, which is definitely good, but the point is that some of them do overreact to the existing problem. For example, when some people vape nicotine-free, 510 thread vape pens, and others call them “addicts.”
Why did this overreaction appear?
To answer this question, we need to go back to the time when the best 510 thread battery for cartridges was not spoken about. Vaping seemed to be a great solution to problems that were not solved for centuries. Everyone said that using the device equals both not refusing from happiness recently provided by smoking only and facing no severe consequences of the habit.
However, it turned out that whatever detail is improved, vaping is still hazardous for people’s health. Whether that is a new type of CBD cartridge, the best 510 battery, or a newly designed mouthpiece, nothing worked. That launched a great wave of dissatisfaction. In addition, previous data that do not match in meaning with the latest updates were merged together with it and put in the melting pot called the Internet.
Trying to google any information about vaping, it is better to limit the time frames and read only the information that has been published within the last year or two. The thing is that the natural development of science works the way that scientists make a statement, then they deflate it, and then they can even reduce the previous deflation. Science is a way of achievements and mistakes.
All this together makes ordinary people feel confused and puzzled. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, people tend to explain the things they do not understand by simplifying or faking information. That worked for centuries for all types of society. Authorities do push overreacting as well.
In fact, the thing is that they have started implementing various kinds of restrictions not a long time ago. By making that, they stirred the public’s interest in the topic, which made more people try to understand [or explain themselves] how a vaping pen, a 510 thread battery, or an e-liquid influences our lives. Consequently, more fake information appeared, more assumptions were made, and more abstract conspiracy theories were formulated.
Conclusions
Even though people spread loads of fake information and often overreact to such novelties as vaping devices, the danger of vaping exists. It is proved by serious studies that vaping can be linked to some health issues. Simultaneously, it is deflated that vaping is a healthy way to give up smoking. Studies claim that more and more such people become dual smokers. To sum up, overreacting is a bad habit that limits people, but that does not mean one should stay careless. Remember, “better safe than sorry”!