Read on Twitter
As promised here's some #SciEngage and #ConSocSci insight on the Seaspiracy conversation. I get the frustration with the documentary so if you need support and comradery vent away. If your goal is to engage with folks who you dont agree with tho, some things to think about: 1/
First, I'm seeing a lot of they won't listen to facts sentiment. Throwing facts at people to change their minds usually doesn't work. Many of us have heard that the deficit model as its known fails but scientists still often fall in this trap of going back and teaching facts. 2/
To help think about how to integrate this more into practice, think about WHY facts don't work. Facts don't work because most people aren't making up their minds based on facts alone. We come to understand the world through experiences, values, identities, social norms, etc 3/
People in general sort of fit what they take in to match that internal world they have built already. But what's interesting is if you push something that conflicts with someone's personal identity/values etc. It can actually push them FURTHER away from what you are saying. 4/
This can happen even when folks have great knowledge about a subject. Kahan did this great study how the most polarized views regarding climate change came from those most knowledgeable but having polar identities (In this case political views). 5/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12244
Fellow scientists, we have to get away from thinking that facts alone can fix many of these issues (though there is a place and time for them). #SciComm was originally rooted in this misinformed idea that if we teach people more science they will listen and appreciate it more. 6/
These ideas and sentiments are not new. Same thing was said back in 60s with space race. Also non-scientists probably knows more than we give them credit for but we probably don't ask right. 7/ http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/4/23/what-you-believe-about-climate-change-doesnt-reflect-what-yo.html
The "public" also largely has confidence in us as a whole which may come as a shock to many. 8/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/
I can't find the citation but I went to a seminar recently by @ufpiec and it was mentioned that one of the main things that folks didn't like about scientists is that we didn't listen. So with all this in mind, this is where engagement comes in. 9/
The idea of engagement is that it is TWO WAY. It's not about us being the lone experts that are here to teach the world. The goal isn't to change anyone's mind. The idea instead is to just dialogue, learn from each other, understand where each person is coming from 10/
Unless you are holding an event and folks come freely to learn, most people aren't asking to be taught or have their minds changed. They want to express what they think. Telling people who feel strongly about something that they are wrong is generally going to be unproductive.11/
If we ask questions and LISTEN we may not change people's minds but at least maybe we've maybe made folks feel heard and found common ground. More importantly we haven't made those divides wider or reinforced the negative ideas that some folks have of scientists.12/
This is especially important when considering discussions with folks that may have a lot of sway in their respective communities (Diffusion of innovation can work with negative views/misinformation too). 13/
During engagement we've also likely learned things that can help our own work and understanding of the issues we are working on. Leaving out the views of stakeholders we don't agree with is not a great recipe for conservation success 14/
I haven't even gotten into the problem that science isn't always right and that it has a long history of being used to do bad thing, and not acknowledging that is very dangerous. There ARE legit reasons folks aren't on our side at this point and we need to own that. 15/
Basically when it comes down to it people are essentially speaking different languages when they speak to folks who don't share our values. Its about talking to find those shared understandings that helps us communicate. 16/
As scientists and/or conservationists we also tend to share values and beliefs and identities and get caught up in these same dynamics that everyone else does. So our language isn't shared and we separate ourselves from others. 17/
Anyway, that was my long thread of me giving out facts. XD The difference here is many of the folks I'm talking to share the same identities and values and may be open to learning more, this is when this approach might work. /18
And lastly here's an article that also discusses a lot of what I've just said and adds more. /19 https://grist.org/politics/why-is-science-is-so-politicized-blame-the-way-we-talk-about-it/
And just a quick end note I know some folks are receiving threats and that is NOT ok and no one needs to tolerate that or have a discussion with folks threatening them.
