You have hit the nail on the head - and expressed it well as you do. Better to use the word CONTROL rather than safety. If energy is under control and understood, accidents are unlikely. So more understanding by the public and the professionals. Eye-ball contact, firm handshakes and no hazmat suits - they do almost nothing except scare people. Professionals should stop trying to impress with science and concentrate on transmitting personal confidence and trust.
You are so right! One of the most knowledgeable experts on nuclear radioactivity, whose name I won't mention, is clueless about how to persuade anyone. His rants against LNT (linear no threshold) policy that has held back nuclear power development for 50 years, while accurate and correct, use jargon that no one but his fellow experts would understand. Any questions for more explanation are answered with arrogance - basically implying that you must be stupid if you have to ask questions.
Your argument for narrative, friendly presentations with humility and some appeal to emotion is broadly applicable to any communication - even Christians trying to persuade someone to follow Christ would be wise to use the approaches that you recommend.
Unfortunately I dont think "why don't we just teach the nerds to be extraverted social mavens" will be a successful strategy.
STEM types are all too aware of their interpersonal shortcomings - lack of ability to cold approach strangers and get them engaged is not due to lack of knowledge or motivation
You did hit the nail on head about the persistence of climate (and other) activism, in spite of zero facts being on their side.
My view is that we are now in a shrill world of disaster speculation as facts. Rightly it is extremists, activists and media who sing most loudly. Challenge to so-called ‘settled science’ or The Narrative is treated as murder, with accompanying character assassination and other unprintable rhetoric, no matter how mildly or gently that challenge is made. The State has much to answer for in encouraging this via propaganda and biased education.
You have hit the nail on the head - and expressed it well as you do. Better to use the word CONTROL rather than safety. If energy is under control and understood, accidents are unlikely. So more understanding by the public and the professionals. Eye-ball contact, firm handshakes and no hazmat suits - they do almost nothing except scare people. Professionals should stop trying to impress with science and concentrate on transmitting personal confidence and trust.
You are so right! One of the most knowledgeable experts on nuclear radioactivity, whose name I won't mention, is clueless about how to persuade anyone. His rants against LNT (linear no threshold) policy that has held back nuclear power development for 50 years, while accurate and correct, use jargon that no one but his fellow experts would understand. Any questions for more explanation are answered with arrogance - basically implying that you must be stupid if you have to ask questions.
Your argument for narrative, friendly presentations with humility and some appeal to emotion is broadly applicable to any communication - even Christians trying to persuade someone to follow Christ would be wise to use the approaches that you recommend.
In Australia rely on Dick Smith to do the messaging. In other places, the messaging needs to be done by people who understand messaging, as Zion says.
Unfortunately I dont think "why don't we just teach the nerds to be extraverted social mavens" will be a successful strategy.
STEM types are all too aware of their interpersonal shortcomings - lack of ability to cold approach strangers and get them engaged is not due to lack of knowledge or motivation
You did hit the nail on head about the persistence of climate (and other) activism, in spite of zero facts being on their side.
My view is that we are now in a shrill world of disaster speculation as facts. Rightly it is extremists, activists and media who sing most loudly. Challenge to so-called ‘settled science’ or The Narrative is treated as murder, with accompanying character assassination and other unprintable rhetoric, no matter how mildly or gently that challenge is made. The State has much to answer for in encouraging this via propaganda and biased education.