The failure of governments to act effectively on the climate change crises is, in part, the fault of scientists.
No, really.
The culture of science does not play with others. It is a rough-and-tumble arena where only the strongest (or well funded) survive. The outlook of a scientist has to be tremendously negative and critical. The culmination of all that dark-side energy is a key part of the peer review process - scientists have to vet the work of each other to ensure that quality research is put on paper. It takes a lot of pressure to make diamonds.
As such, a scientist approaches most new information with "well… but…" and proceeds to tear it down. This happens all the time, and is a total buzz kill. I am deliberately stealing the following section from Dr. Randy Olson's Don't be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, a book which everyone should buy and read at least twice.
You are with a friend at a zoo. You're friend is babysitting, and has a 7 year old girl with the two of you. The little girl points to a llama:
"Wow! That llama has 7 legs!"
Scientists' response: "What? A llama could never have 7 legs. There must be another lama one right behind it."
Smart persons' response: "I wonder what happened to the 8th?"
Who would you rather hang out at the zoo with? It is important for scientists to be critical - but there has to be a shift when your audience does not include scientists.
This is one of the reasons why scientists have punted in the climate change debate. I don't want to diminish their work - it is tremendously significant and unambiguous in its implications for humanity. And it takes a lot of hard work that doesn't get the appreciation it deserves. But the quality of the science has not been easily translated into the language that most other folks speak. And that is bad for everyone.
Look at how politicians speak. Most successful presidential candidates speak aspirationally. They will say negative things about horrible, terrible people (like their opponents), but by and large they will say "we can" more than "we can't". They will talk about how great people of X nation are, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Generally, when I read a scientists statement in the media about climate change, it tends to be overwhelmingly negative. When you have professional scientists showing signs of clinical depression while well-funded climate skeptics tend to be happy and reaffirming, then unsurprisingly public perceptions veer away from scientific consensus. Don't get me wrong, I understand why scientists can be cynical and climate skeptics can be happy (they have all that oil-company money), but if you can't communicate to your audience, then you might as well not try to communicate at all.
For scientists to be able to engage the public there are some guidelines that need to be followed:
Most of these speak for themselves, but (6) is really important. Most scientists I've met have a thousand concepts swirling in their mind. They're smart people, so its hard for them to push one message forward. But to successfully communicate, you have to be able to focus on what you want your audience to know.
~~~Note~~~
I hope to expand on this post in the future, so if you're interested come back to the site soon.
No, really.
The culture of science does not play with others. It is a rough-and-tumble arena where only the strongest (or well funded) survive. The outlook of a scientist has to be tremendously negative and critical. The culmination of all that dark-side energy is a key part of the peer review process - scientists have to vet the work of each other to ensure that quality research is put on paper. It takes a lot of pressure to make diamonds.
As such, a scientist approaches most new information with "well… but…" and proceeds to tear it down. This happens all the time, and is a total buzz kill. I am deliberately stealing the following section from Dr. Randy Olson's Don't be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, a book which everyone should buy and read at least twice.
You are with a friend at a zoo. You're friend is babysitting, and has a 7 year old girl with the two of you. The little girl points to a llama:
"Wow! That llama has 7 legs!"
Scientists' response: "What? A llama could never have 7 legs. There must be another lama one right behind it."
Smart persons' response: "I wonder what happened to the 8th?"
Who would you rather hang out at the zoo with? It is important for scientists to be critical - but there has to be a shift when your audience does not include scientists.
This is one of the reasons why scientists have punted in the climate change debate. I don't want to diminish their work - it is tremendously significant and unambiguous in its implications for humanity. And it takes a lot of hard work that doesn't get the appreciation it deserves. But the quality of the science has not been easily translated into the language that most other folks speak. And that is bad for everyone.
Look at how politicians speak. Most successful presidential candidates speak aspirationally. They will say negative things about horrible, terrible people (like their opponents), but by and large they will say "we can" more than "we can't". They will talk about how great people of X nation are, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Generally, when I read a scientists statement in the media about climate change, it tends to be overwhelmingly negative. When you have professional scientists showing signs of clinical depression while well-funded climate skeptics tend to be happy and reaffirming, then unsurprisingly public perceptions veer away from scientific consensus. Don't get me wrong, I understand why scientists can be cynical and climate skeptics can be happy (they have all that oil-company money), but if you can't communicate to your audience, then you might as well not try to communicate at all.
For scientists to be able to engage the public there are some guidelines that need to be followed:
- Use positives, not negatives
- Short sentences. Clear words.
- Use real-world examples
- Humor!
- Spontaneity - don't use a script
- Identify a single message to send to the audience
Most of these speak for themselves, but (6) is really important. Most scientists I've met have a thousand concepts swirling in their mind. They're smart people, so its hard for them to push one message forward. But to successfully communicate, you have to be able to focus on what you want your audience to know.
~~~Note~~~
I hope to expand on this post in the future, so if you're interested come back to the site soon.