|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
Communicating Science
I was lucky. I grew up in a neighbourhood populated by scientists, engineers, and university professors. My friends in school were the children of thinkers and learners and intellectuals. I missed out on some experiences and my friend group was pretty homogenous in certain dimensions, but from a certain perspective we were diverse. Though my upbringing lacked in some ways, "got a decent exposure to science" was not one of them.
This isn't the case for many. Scientists are percieved as callous and indifferent, or aloof, by many in society. Whether or not it's true, there's a certain sense amongst my friends that this isn't a good thing. The things we make are gradually growing more complex and having bigger impacts on society. Radio, Television, and Internet all significantly changed the way we gather information. People like to throw "web 2.0" around a lot, but it's noteworthy that the way content is produced and shared on the internet has changed as well. With a transition from devices with keyboards to devices without keyboards, we also see a change in how computers work. Tablets and smartphones do a good job of providing users with input methods, but when your device is 90% screen and you have no physical keyboard, it's obviously optimized for recieving, not sending, information. Another change. Well, I'm getting off topic so here's the deal: scientists need to get public engagement higher. It doesn't have to be like, big, there just needs to be more of it than there is now.
Unfortunately, scientists are not seen as warm communicators (link). For example, bus drivers are evidently warmer communicators than scientists (except in New Jersey-- yet another reason not to move there). Fiske and Dupree mention more in their recent publication in PNAS (link)
In the bottom left—low-warmth, low-competence, “disgust” corner—appear prostitutes, garbage collectors, dishwashers, and fast-food workers. They are rated low on both dimensions and higher on disgust and contempt than other groups are. That is, they are neither trusted nor respected.
The remaining corners of the space are ambivalent in the sense of having mixed images, scoring high on one dimension and low on the other. The ambivalent, high-warmth, low-competence, “pity” quadrant (upper left in Fig. 2) is empty in this dataset, perhaps being reserved for the unemployed (who land there in other datasets), because the current data points all involve groups that have a job.
The fourth corner lists the ambivalently perceived high-competence, low-warmth, “envied” professions: lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. They earn respect but not trust. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise (competence) but also trustworthiness (warmth). People report envy and jealousy toward groups in this space. These are mixed emotions that include both admiration and resentment (23, 24). Science communicators arguably need to know about this possible type of response to them.
Check out the rest when you have a chance.
When I think about the portrayal of scientists and engineers in fiction media, it's a mixed bag. Tony Stark is clearly some kind of engineer since he makes robot suits, and he comes off as a well-rounded troubled but growing protagonists in Iron Man. He's got a lot of moxie and isn't a villain or a cringing nerd. Not bad! Then I think about The IT Crowd, one of my favourite shows, and I feel like the treatment of scientists is a bit worse there. Of course, that's needed to make the show excellent, but the show's excellence doesn't change the fact that the characters protrayed come off as utterly unrelateable in some ways. Strictly speaking, better than a lot of shows, but not great.
Scientists don't really get shafted that much in the media, but science is fairly important. Currently, we're doing better that New Jersey Bus Drivers, but I think we'll need to do better than that if we want people to listen when it matters. It's not meaningful to demand that film companies and TV shows stop doing something that's funny and makes them money, but increasing civic engagement and doing your best to support non-terrible representations of scientists in the media may be a start. Some of the coldness is deserved, too, since "skill at PR" is not one of the traits that helps you get a PhD or a job in software engineering. We all know the truth to the joke about engineers and shoes-- that you can tell which engineers are outgoing because when they talk to you they look at your shoes rather than their own. I've also definitely met "that guy" at a couple of jobs. You know that guy. So there's work to be done on that front as well, though I can't possibly imagine what you could do to make that guy better.
On the other hand, this may not be a modern universal. Hu Jintao was an engineer, and Xi Jinping was at least trained as one. Maybe it's a cultural thing? I'm not saying that politicians should be scientists, just that the fact Hu Jintao was an engineer shows that there are different thoughts in some places about the general competence of scientists. I doubt that Bill Gates would have any sort of shot of winning major office in the US (and this would also be a waste of his time).
What do you think? Is the perception of scientists in the media bad or good in your country? Is it something that would be valuable to change?
 
|
Well I'm not going to venture into talking about Hu Jintao 
When I read your post I immediately think of the counter-example of Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He hosts debates which are open to listen to, and hosted Cosmos (the show is really well done) which aired on national TV, both in Canada and the US (and that's just a fraction of what he does for public outreach). If that isn't a positive reinforcement of the image of scientists, or an incentive to make kids want to pursue science I don't know what is 
In Canada afaik scientists are well seen. In the University I go to we pride ourselves mainly in the scientific contributors that graduated from it (chemists, physiologists/cardiologists, and a few astronauts and nobel prize laureates hehe).
I agree that the technological advances made thanks to science have benefited societies wholly, but what I think is even more fundamental to the place of science is the mindset it promotes: a constant questioning of facts, rigorous verification and repetition, and utmost transparency. This is imo by far the most precious thing we could learn from science because it transcends the various disciplines that make up what we call "science programs" in institutions. Of all things, this I think is what should be stressed in science and its communication!
Thanks for reading <3
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
Oh yeah, to be clear I'm not making any sort of statement on Hu Jintao's quality as a leader (or as an engineer, for that matter). I'm just noting that he was both.
|
I just stumbled on this thread I was getting ready to read a small/simple essay on science but I changed my mind because today beat me up completely and I can't figure out how I would structure it.
So instead I'll just say this: I have a MASSIVE amount of respect for the people who take it upon themselves to popularize science. I don't know if using this word makes sense in English but here we have Hubert Reeves, an astrophysicist, who "vulgarizes" science and he's one of the last few people who still today try to get people interested in science when all we hear about anymore is going to school to get a degree that pays like business and engineering, acquiring a ****ing trade and then generating income fast.
Hubert Reeves is our local version of the likes of Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson mentioned previously in this thread and I wish I could just listen to these people talk about science all day, and I wish I could understand more of it. I still watch Carl Sagan's explanation of the 4th dimension and I wish like hell I could wrap my mind around this concept. But at least I'm asking questions, and it's a shame that so few people will be willing to do the work after our current generation of geniuses go. Sure, we'll have some, but it's harder because "we have stopped dreaming" as NDT said so eloquently. We have stopped giving these people decent wages when their work is so incredibly important.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
. Scientists are percieved as callous and indifferent, or aloof, by many in society.
I don't know about that. There's a large subset of people who don't know the first thing about science, except that being perceived as liking science is a proxy for being perceived as intelligent.
see: I fucking love science, the zealous defenders of NDT
|
|
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
those who have respect for science and the peer-review process
those who are overly skeptical of leading scientific theories
you know these are not necessarily mutually exclusive right?
"You disagree with me, therefore you must be anti-science and thus irrational / illogical" strikes me as pretty dogmatic and zealous. I also like the elevation of peer-review process as near-synonymous with science. It is the better of a number of bad options for verifying reproducibility of results, still subject to human flaws. It is not a sacrament.
It would be nice if people could be convinced of truth independent of their emotions (which let's be clear should still temper their actions)
yeah, look at those rubes who can't separate emotions from the truth. Good thing that could never happen to me with my superior grasp of reality and logic.
|
Hello, Engineer and Economist here.
As an engineer, I have an ethical responsibility to create what I create for the benefit of society, and not for my own gain. Whenever creating anything, I should think about how it will contribute to society, instead of simple looking at how much money it will make me. Given where I live in Canada, I think it's fair to say, that to an extent this is the case for most engineers. Science is a bit different, as the application of what is being created is not always so clear, and true uses of inventions are sometimes realized even decades later.
Many people I am surrounded by believe that the world should be ran by engineers and scientists (engineers specifically), as to most people, the world is a black box. People don't know how a car works, they just know there are cylinders, explosions, and a car moves. People don't know how information is stored on a CD, most people don't even know how electricity is generated from a spinning turbine. And because people don't understand their surrounding, they should not make decisions about their world. It's a convincing argument, and it has proven in the past that people are clueless in solving problems when it comes to government decisions.
But here is my argument, and why I believe scientists should not be in charge: Technology is not autonomous... Technology is decided for society, and technology is shaped by society. At the end of the day, regardless of what happens, society chooses what technology will exist, and then once it exists, it exerts an influence on the society (not before being decided by the people though).
It's as simple as that, people create needs in the world, and scientists and engineers are there to meet those demands, create what hasn't been based on the desire of the people, not based on the desire of science. An engineer doesn't say "hey, I'm going to go build a bridge today", society must create a need. That is the number one differentiation that needs to be made, and I've actually taken a course in this topic. Why should we get to control a world where we aren't the ones making the decisions?
The system works very well when society decides the technology, safe and desired technology is picked, the rest is discarded... However the issue that arises is the free market. When society is not able to make the decisions, because economics is influencing decisions too much, that's when we have issues. That's why a free market makes the environment go to shit for example, because it's the economy making the decisions, and not the people. So what I propose is the need for an assembly of scientists, engineers, sociologists, geologists, politicians, economists not affiliated to the economic gains of a certain project to create decisions about whether this or that should happen. To make it so that society decides, and not the economy.
Remember, technology does not have a mind of it's own, it does not grow by itself, it is a contained force, controlled by external forces, all of which we have control over, some that we simply choose to ignore.
edit: Also keep in mind, in general people interested in numbers want to stay away from things that aren't quantifiable and absolute, and it's a very natural perspective for scientists to simply think:
"The effort to change the world is too much"
"I'll live my life where the government will leave me alone, and I don't care what happens afterwards"
"I can solve this problem more effectively than anyone else, the laws of the universe judged me, not my peer"
And of course an understanding of politics is probably the least important skill a scientist/engineer needs for his career. However if you're an economist, a journalist, a teacher, sociologist, artist... Your field will naturally involve a bit of a political component, while if I was an engineer in fascist Germany, in USA, or under Stalin, my job would be the same regardless.
|
Looking at trust of jobs is interesting, because generally, at least myself, the number one way you look at if you trust someone is their intentions.
"Do they have anything to gain from trying to convince me of this"?... And a teacher, family doctor, school adviser don't, not in terms of economic benefit. Though when a Hair Stylist tries to tell me that I should cut my hair more often, and it'll be healthier, there is an obvious clear reason for distrust, as she gains the benefit of me coming for a hair cut more often... More money. Same goes for financial bankers, engineers, politicians, lawyers, etc.
(sidenote: As a tip, that's the # one way to know whether what something someone says is true or not. If they have nothing to gain, then you can be more certain of the truth, but when they have something to gain, the information can be false, and further research should be pursued. That's why school is so nice, you get information in which nobody trying to mislead you (well the government to an extent), so you can gain the "truth" to build your idea of a world, and then you can detect when people are full of bullshit, or trying to help you).
But I think it's natural this to be the case for most high ranking jobs where a large salary is involved. I don't think it's a problem of being in science. What you must do is present yourself as a honest and sincere individual. Sometimes you can pick up what's bullshit, and when it looks legit... That's a matter of your communication skills - your tone, your motives, your gestures, your formality, your choice of words... And engineer can come off as a trust worthy person. People simply find dumb people warm, because they aren't smart enough to take advantage of them, while others are. That's why it's important to identify peoples' intentions as a professional, because simply by ones' profession, you cannot say what kind of person you will be.
I figure I'm looping in my points a bit, but in the end - a scientist can come off just as warm as anyone else (maybe not when wearing a lab coat though). It's all about the interpersonal skills.
|
An important thing to note is that this perception is likely not very universal. To some extent it is related to what fiwifaki (sorry man, I will not try to make that capitalization ) said just above - the salary. In out country, science is definitely not a "high ranking job where a large salary is involved" - scientists are generally underpaid and are percieved as such. I would say that this perception is even a little exagerated, because it has some inertia: the salaries are not that gravely low anymore, but they are still low enough that the main issue for science is keeping people from fleeing to business because they want to make more money. This has a fundamental effect on the perception of scientists, because they are widely seen as someone who sacrifices monetary gain for his passion. The same goes with doctors, nurses, teachers - all these professions are terribly underpaid (much more than actual scientists) and it gives them a very strong aura of "I do it for you, you ungracious piece of shit".
On a personal note, I fully agree that we need to engage anyone as much as possible and I have been lucky to get a lot of opportunities to work on that as my close colleague is very good in coming up with things we should do as outreach. It is not very easy to spread the word about particle physics, as the concepts beyond "omg a particle without which nothing would be heavy" are pretty difficult to discuss with laymen, but we are trying - and also being the "Departement of Astroparticle Physics", we can (and do) always switch to being astronomers, when we need something simpler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
