This thread turns out to have found a place in an ongoing discussion in the SciComm world. Here are two takes that resonated with me.
First from @zeynephttps://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1341235643276554240 …
-
Show this thread
-
Hank Green Retweeted Gavin Schmidt
Second from
@ClimateOfGavin who, being in climate communication, has seen this all before.https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1341268597776244736 …Hank Green added,
3 replies 14 retweets 631 likesShow this thread -
But I also think some people are worried about giving people any excuse to not wear masks. So it’s also a question of what the job is. Is the priority to spread the most accurate information possible? Or is it to increase compliance with CDC guidelines. I honestly don’t know.
11 replies 21 retweets 749 likesShow this thread -
But I do think that going with
@zeynep’s “it probably will, but we’re waiting for more information” language prevents the misunderstanding we’re in now, is more accurate than “we don’t know”, and hopefully communicates the need for caution.12 replies 19 retweets 770 likesShow this thread -
And also, it lets us avoid yet another “OH SO THEYRE CHANGING THEIR MINDS AGAIN” moment that I honestly think is undermining people’s faith in science.
9 replies 18 retweets 1,290 likesShow this thread -
My instinct is to say, “this isn’t my fault, people should get that uncertainty is normal and also probably temporary” but my job is to communicate science, so that thought is ultimately destructive to the whole endeavor.
30 replies 24 retweets 1,126 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @hankgreen
I think not communicating information, but communicating messaging that we think will optimize for behavior has actually been detrimental to optimizing for behavior. Complex but: we alone don’t control the public sphere, and if we don’t trust people, they don’t trust us back.
1 reply 15 retweets 124 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @hankgreen
So over emphasizing the caveats plus a faux “we don’t know” has given antivaxxers a talking point, one that I have seen spread beyond anti-vaxxers, that a vaccine that is in reality remarkable beyond anything we had hoped for is kinda weak and even pointless. Incredible own goal.
3 replies 1 retweet 50 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
“If we don’t trust them they don’t trust us back” is the thing.
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @hankgreen @zeynep
But it’s so easy to not trust them in this world...often because our biases are also being exploited by social media...making us think that we’re fighting a battle when we should just be informing.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
I think we are fighting a battle: one for trust. And it’s been a pattern. Masks are useless or even harmless instead of we have a shortage. How dare you go to the beach instead of do enjoy the outdoors but don’t crowd indoors. Now an overemphasis on don’t take your mask off yet.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @hankgreen
I mean by all means, we can put the “don’t take your mask off yet” somewhere in the article once. But there have been so many headlines, major articles, threads and admonitions just on that—along with that faux we don’t know. We’re not managing a kindergarten class!
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @hankgreen
From: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21622297/ The model that makes sense to me is to think about the network. People believe those they already know and trust. A sci communicator can focus on teaching science to whoever they can and trust that those folks will pay it forward on their own.pic.twitter.com/BeEAWubGdR
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.