I finally got time to watch this video of Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney on Speaking Science 2.0. Good stuff, but an hour long so I’ve summarized below. Of course, my summary may have missed something important or I may have got something wrong…
(very) Short version:
- “Scientists need to take communication as seriously as they do research”. Voters are cognitive misers and are not intrinsically fascinated by your topic.
- Journalists have to frame issues in 6 hours before deadline. Make their jobs easier, not harder.
- There’s more popularly available scientific information then ever before in public, but scientific literacy has been holding steady at a low level for about thirty years now.
- During a political battle is a problematic time to raise scientific literacy; your opponents will counter with scientific-sounding distortions and leave the audience with the idea that more scientific uncertainty exists than is the case. Instead, frame the issue in terms of mutual interest.
- Forget arguing with your extreme opponents; you’re not going to convince them. In fact, forget arguing at all; work on communicating with people in the middle.
- Calling people idiots may feel good, but is shooting oneself in the foot.
Wish the PowerPoint presentation could have been included in the video. In fact, show the presentation and put the speaker in a little “frame” (pun intended) in the corner.
This is pretty basic ‘Dale Carnegie’ stuff, but the science community and the Democratic party (which should not be confused with each other) have been blindsided by extremely sophisticated framing from the other side.
1. Public speaking is central to success in many fields. Communication theory is well and good, but like you said—what’s wrong with starting by using basic Dale Carnegie. I am shocked to learn that a PhD would tend not to know this intuitively.
2. The opposition framing—there is a view that marketing and communication skills are “open” or “available” to any interested party and success of the message is dependent on will. I posit that there is an industry in marketing and message crafting that does not reveal it’s methods willingly. No conspiracy; it is just a pay-for service that holds its methods as a valuable trade asset. It’s the difference between dealing with interested amateurs and people that are pros and use their profession to make real money.
Amen. Two methods come to mind:
One: Pack up the opposition, marginalize them, demonize them, determine that they should have no impact on the policy debates (because of ignorance, stupidity they shouldn’t vote), herd them onto the trains, and turn the ovens on.
Two: Realize that the complexity of human development and social interactions work best over time as we move the “middle” toward desired goals. Usually by education, repetition (be willing to patiently tell the story hundreds if not thousands of times), and proper funding. There has to be a <b>basic human respect</i> for the “idiots” and the “ignoramuses” as people—that you’re willing to sacrifice your own limited time to bring them forward without resorting to the ovens.
Many people expect that once you provide the irrefutable evidence, an epiphany will change the idiots over to enlightenment; but that change is usually pretty slow. It is silly, silly, silly, to hear relatively intelligent people start to call other adults idiots (or whatever insulting name is used for the opposition) because they don’t accept a policy view—that whole outlook leads to the ovens.
Ted:
Pfui! You have presented an “either-or” fallacy. There are more alternatives than suffering fools, or roasting them in ovens. This whole mamby-pamby politically correct demand for unearned “respect” must be viewed as the preemptive ploy that it is. I would much rather engage those that hold opposing beliefs than let it appear that those beliefs are unchallenged. I have no illusion regarding changing their minds, but I would rather have the undecided onlooker walk away confused than walk away nodding their head because of a lack of conflicting information. If my opponent is crafty enough to put me on the defensive and so appear to have the stronger argument, then so be it. The world is full of con men, and the conned. We are all idiots from time to time, or at least behave as such. If your opinion is that I am an idiot, I welcome your honest opinion, but I expect you to tell me exactly why you think so.
Well, what I said is “Two methods come to mind”, I didn’t say those were the only two methods. And I don’t consider #2 as suffering them.
If you choose to challenge people’s mindset by calling them idiots, that may work for you. Usually, it doesn’t work for me and so I don’t find it effectual. I also did not suggest that people should be unchallenged.
I don’t think that you need to walk away – there is a civilized way to impart information.
Getting into a shouting match while calling someone an idiot tends to not have a very positive effect for the casual fence-sitter in my opinion. You may get cheering on from people that mirror your view, but I doubt that calling someone an idiot really converts either them or a thinking audience to your point of view. This type of persuasiveness is easily witnessed on many blogs. First the blogmaster finds some easy foils— than makes it his/her avocation to call them out on stupidity constantly. I find that quite lazy—there are many issues that intelligent people can take on—environment, science, politics, healthcare—but trolling the clueless is wankery, it’s not progress. It’s bullying on par with talk radio.
Yeah, I don’t know what you’re saying. Do we need to make everyone EARN respect so they can be treated with respect? I usually give them the benefit of the doubt on that respect thing. I respect most people—so although I may disagree on a variety of questions, and may even think someone is DEAD, DEAD wrong—I usually will not call him/her an idiot. It usually isn’t necessary to say it even if it’s true because it becomes self evident to the impartial viewer. It’s classless and confrontational that takes me further from the goal, not closer to it. It may even feel good in the moment, but overall it’s counterproductive.
Just an opinion.