Snippets of Science

I have a larger set of thoughts based on this, and in fact will be giving a talk about it soon, but I continue to see this mistake when scientists try and convince others of the value of their work, and honestly I get it.

When we enter a field, there are parts that appeal to us, things that have happened that convince us. Obviously, if it was convincing to me, surely it should be convincing to others, right? This is a leading question, naturally. Everyone is subject to an entire history of their life that, as a stranger, acquaintance, or even friend, we can’t fully grasp. What is it they value in work? In life? What aspects of the world do they believe are worth their attention?

When you are trying to communicate with someone, it’s imperative to keep this in mind, especially when in a scientific field. We are so used to the idea of facts being enough to convince someone. It’s the only way research can meaningfully happen, so when we encounter someone where that isn’t enough? It’s easy to write them off, or get upset. Instead, listen to them and understand them.

One day, while I was working at Oriel Science, someone came in and began discussing conspiracy theories. Now, this is a fairly common occurrence and the normal procedure essentially boils down to smiling and nodding so they don’t bother the other visitors. But it was quiet, so I decided to hear this person out, to figure out why they had their belief. As it turns out, they simply didn’t understand how the process of science works. Rather than saying how clear the evidence is against their beliefs, I was able to convince them by leading them through how the evidence against their ideas was found.

Is this always going to be the method? No, of course not. This is only one example of how listening and understanding your communication partner can benefit your goals. Maybe, after communicating, you too can come away feeling as though you understand more about the world. Is it ever bad to understand the world more complexly?