"When we're the only source of breastfeeding info a mother gets, we can't
make that info diverge *too* far from what she earlier perceived to be the
truth, or we lose credibility and thus lose some of our ability to help
her.  Yet if we *don't* give the facts, she never hears them anywhere else."

I don't know, Diane - In my experience, the "info" can diverge *wildly* from
anything she had previously heard or accepted, as long as the manner of
sharing the info (starting with how we listen to what she is saying)is
"right". What's "right"? Differs with who you're talking to. The information
I share with one of our Cornell faculty new-moms is the same in content as
with my little 12-year-olds at WIC, but HOW I do so can be radically
different. I don't think we lose credibility by information we share,
however "off the wall" it may sound to her relative to everything else she's
heard, so much as by the way we listen, the words we use, and the respect
(or lack of same) we show her. (See Dr. Jack's comment re: "alternative"
practitioners - same thing, I think - IF we listen first). Credibility's a
funny thing, it's not just an objective quality and it doesn't always derive
from the sources we think it might.

I think about it with clients the same way I think about it for myself; if I
go to, say, an acupuncturist, knowing nothing much about acupuncture except
what I've "heard", UNTIL he's treated me I don't have any way to evaluate
his credibility except my own response to him. Let's say he tells me "Your
chi is blocked at the second chakra and your tongue-coating tells me you
have an excess of heat deriving from your liver". If I "like" him, based on
how he presents himself, how he treats me, how he listens and responds to my
concerns, I'll ask a few questions but I'll probably let him jab me, and
I'll listen to what he says. THEN I'll see how my condition responds to his
recommendations; if it's a positive response, great, but even if there's not
much change I'll have some trust in him and be likely to keep working with
him till either something works for me or I decide he's way off the track.
Credibility. On the other hand, if he seems like a jerk to me (i.e. I don't
"like" him, he doesn't bother to listen, he overides everything I say, he
smells wrong, whatever) I'm UNLIKELY to follow his suggestions, and I'll
never know if he's "good" at what he does. I sure won't come back, and I'm
likely to decide that whole acupuncture thing is for the birds anyway.
Non-credibility.

Not scientific, but very human, I think. Well, same with us...if we listen,
use words and manners the client is comfortable with, we could tell her to
jump on her left foot and howl at the moon and chances are she'll try it;
then either our suggestions will work or not.

My point, I guess, is that *real* credibility takes a while to establish,
but you don't even get a shot at that till you've established enough faith
to get through, and that happens by how and who we are rather than by how
far-out what we say might seem. And none of that means "don't tell her what
she doesn't want to hear" BTW; it just means "say it so she can hear you".

Cathy Bargar, highly intractable in the hands of unknown "experts", esp. re:
medical care