A couple of weeks ago, Nicholas Kristof wrote this about the problems humanitarian organizations face in trying to motivate the public to support their causes:
Kristof was writing about "bleeding hearts" who are trying to promote humanitarian causes. What does doing good have to do with communicating science (beyond the obvious connection that many of our most urgent problems need scientific input if they are to be solved)?In a thoughtful book published this year, "The Life You Can Save," Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University ... explores why we're so willing to try to assist a stranger before us, while so unwilling to donate to try to save strangers from malaria half a world away.
One of the reasons, I believe, is that humanitarians are abjectly ineffective at selling their causes. Any brand of toothpaste is peddled with far more sophistication than the life-saving work of aid groups.
...
There are no easy answers here, but if a toothpaste company had these miserable results in its messaging, it would go back to the drawing board. That's what bleeding hearts need to do as well.
If a toothpaste company had these miserable results in its messaging, it would go back to the drawing board.As scientists, we like to complain about how ignorant the public is of basic scientific facts, but at some point we have to stop and ask ourselves whether we are part of the problem. Maybe we share some of the blame for the sorry state of science literacy.
That seems to be at least part of the argument that Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney make in their new book, Unscientific America. I say "seems to be" because I just bought my copy last week,1 and I've only had time to read the first couple of chapters. Kristof argues that "appeals to our rationality actually seem to impede empathy." That's hard for many of us to accept, because we think that facts and logic, and only facts and logic, should determine whether a position is accepted. Well, the facts of psychology indicate that humans don't make decisions based only on facts and logic. That means that we have to pay attention to things beyond facts and logic when we try to communicate the beauty and wonder of science to a broader public.2 Beauty and wonder are emotional and aesthetic responses. We need to pay attention to those when we try to communicate science.
But beauty and wonder are in the eyes of the beholder. That means we need to pay attention to the likes, dislikes, and prejudices of our audience. Communication is a two-way street. It won't happen if we do all the talking. We have to listen to what our audience is telling us, too. I think that's the argument that Sheril and Chris are going to be making, and I look forward to getting some good advice from them. If Michael Mann thinks it's a must read, that's a good indication I will.3
1On my Kindle.
2If you think that sounds like "framing", you're catching my drift.
3P.Z. Myers has a very different take.
But beauty and wonder are in the eyes of the beholder. That means we need to pay attention to the likes, dislikes, and prejudices of our audience. Communication is a two-way street. It won't happen if we do all the talking. We have to listen to what our audience is telling us, too. I think that's the argument that Sheril and Chris are going to be making, and I look forward to getting some good advice from them. If Michael Mann thinks it's a must read, that's a good indication I will.3
1On my Kindle.
2If you think that sounds like "framing", you're catching my drift.
3P.Z. Myers has a very different take.
Leave a comment