Bike helmet or grizzly bear?

Why do some people trust elderberry syrup, but not ibuprofen? Vitamins, but not vaccines? Organic food, but not fluoridated water? The choices we make about what to put in our bodies and how to protect ourselves from illness often stem from deep-seated cultural mindsets (sometimes called mental models). One cultural mindset that’s getting a lot of play right now? The idea that “natural” is better than “artificial.”  

I think about this one a lot when I talk with a friend of mine. She doesn’t vaccinate her kids. I do. We disagree—strongly—on that point. But after getting past the discomfort of our opposing views, I realized that we share so many values. We both eat locally grown food whenever we can, question corporate influence on our food systems, and would rather get our kids outside in all kinds of weather than plop them in front of a screen. We both lean into nature—we just apply that "natural vs. artificial" mindset in different ways.  

Health choices aren’t just about facts versus misinformation—they’re also about what feels safe, trustworthy, and aligned with our beliefs. And the good news is that public health doesn’t have to fight cultural mindsets; it can work within them. After all, vaccines empower the body’s natural immune response. Clean drinking water mimics nature’s own filtration process. And there’s exciting work happening across our region to strengthen local food systems.  

The key isn’t to dismiss people’s instincts—it’s to connect public health solutions to the values they already hold. 

Because, let’s be honest, natural isn’t always better for us. Jellyfish, grizzly bears, and the polio virus are all natural. Meanwhile, antihistamines, bear spray, vaccines, and bike helmets are life-saving artificial interventions. But, for any health decision, there are a lot of nuanced risks and benefits to sift through, so framing a choice between extremes isn’t very helpful.   

And you won’t spark productive thinking on public health topics with a direct rebuttal, a list of evidence, or scientific authority.  

Actually, these are all communication traps (see link below). You can spark productive thinking by meeting people where they are, acknowledging what matters to them, and connecting it to the work of public health. 

The challenge isn’t overcoming mindsets—it’s finding the common ground where evidence-based public health resonates. 

So, when my friend says, “We should all live in community and take care of each other when we’re sick, instead of forcing vaccines,” I don’t jump in with a contradiction. Instead, I lean into what we agree on: “Yes! We should be taking care of each other! That’s exactly what public health aims to do.” 

From that common ground, I can listen to understand her vision and concerns. Then, I might find more room to talk about how public health isn’t about forcing solutions or taking away choices—it’s about making sure everyone has what they need to be healthy and thrive. Maybe I’ll even get to share why, for me, getting a vaccine is an act of care for my community—another value that we share.  

Are you as fascinated as I am by mental models and how they affect our individual and collective decisions?  

• Take a deep dive into how the natural vs. artificial mindset is playing out in national policy decisions with Your Local Epidemiologist.  

• Then, avoid communication traps that might seem persuasive, but actually erode trust in public health, with the FrameWorks Institute: How to Counter Public Health Myths and Elevate Science Now. It’s jam-packed with evidence-based strategies that do work to dampen misinformation, reduce polarization, and rebuild trust.