Alan started with a personal question to the audience of scientists, with the caveat that an answer didn't need to be said. "What's the one thing you want the public to know?"
This was a great way to start the talk, by having each person think about their passion.
Alan talked about a personal story of a near death experience he had, interspersed with some light comedy. The lesson was that curiosity is important.
Alan then told an emotional story demonstrating the problem of language gaps.
Alan's central theme was to treat communicating science like the experience of blind date.
On a blind date, each person is asking, "Does this other person have my interest at heart? What are they trying to get from me?" The transition process from blind date to love occurs in three steps:
- attraction
- infatuation
- commitment
The attraction occurs within 1 to 2 minutes of interacting. The primary signals are conveyed by body language and tone of voice (rather than what gets said). The body language, tone of voice, content, and actions all have to align.
For this reason, engaging with your audience is better than reading a prepared speech or using power point.
In reference to science, there is an initial attraction (or not).
In the infatuation stage, everything reminds me of the other person (or science in this case). Emotions help form memory.
In the commitment phase, each person is paying attention to what the other person is feeling (empathy) and thinking (theory of mind). Each person observes the other person for clues as to their emotional and mental state.
The distinction of being human (rather than a Neanderthal) is due in part to communication. Conveying concepts enables memetic evolution.
Nowadays this has reached the other end of the spectrum. The curse of knowledge results in poor communication: "I understand some narrow topic so deeply that everyone else must also know this."
In a similar vein, jargon enables efficiency but can cause confusion in communication.
Alan provided an example of this with the participation of a volunteer from the audience. Alan gave the volunteer a song title, then the volunteer tapped the song out on a table. The audience, listening to the taps, guessed the song title incorrectly. This showed that what was in the volunteer's head wasn't conveyed to the audience.
Alan's Center for Communicating Science offers training for scientists. One technique is improv. Spontaneity improves speaking: when you don't know what's going to happen next, your audience follows more closely. Another aspect of the training is to make the message concise.
Communicating science effectively is important. People in congress don't want to fund activities they don't understand.
Another tip from Alan was to tell a story. The elements of a story are
In a similar vein, jargon enables efficiency but can cause confusion in communication.
Alan provided an example of this with the participation of a volunteer from the audience. Alan gave the volunteer a song title, then the volunteer tapped the song out on a table. The audience, listening to the taps, guessed the song title incorrectly. This showed that what was in the volunteer's head wasn't conveyed to the audience.
Alan's Center for Communicating Science offers training for scientists. One technique is improv. Spontaneity improves speaking: when you don't know what's going to happen next, your audience follows more closely. Another aspect of the training is to make the message concise.
Communicating science effectively is important. People in congress don't want to fund activities they don't understand.
Another tip from Alan was to tell a story. The elements of a story are
- a hero
- an objective (the challenge)
- obstacles
- the struggle of the hero to overcome the obstacles
- the result
Alan got another volunteer and demonstrated this concept. First, the volunteer carried an empty glass from one end of the stage to the other. Then Alan filled the glass to the brim and instructed the volunteer to carry the glass back without spilling any. In this second step, the audience was more engaged (a hero had an objective and obstacles, the hero struggled to get the result).
The change Alan advocates is not purely intellectual. It takes training and practice.
One aspect of the training Alan uses to improve science communication is the use of simplification and analogies. These can be dangerous if used poorly. The point is to lead your audience to want to know more.
Alan acknowledged that there is a perception that scientists are selfish elitists who are untrustworthy. The selfishness is not contributing to society, the elitism is getting money from hard working taxpayers, and the lack of trust comes from the message from science appearing to constantly change (even contradicting previous statements).
Alan's advice for addressing these perceived faults is that scientists should not assume that audiences understand the scientific method. When conveying results, also discuss the scientific method. Explain that experiments don't lead to truth, merely additional evidence.
An audience may not be emotionally accepting of uncertainty. Uncertainty is embraced in science, whereas it often incurs a sense of fear.
When communicating with an audience, start shallow. Only progress into the details of a topic if your audience is curious. Pause and look for indicators of interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment