the evolving mind

A series of experiments conducted by researchers at Erasmus University in the Netherlands may shed some light on the difficulty of bringing science into the public square. The research was actually in the domain of “consumer science,” but I believe it may tell a bigger story.

The article, Want to convince? Use abstract rather than concrete language, shared a few interesting findings. First, and in general, when word-of-mouth recommendations for products is expressed in more abstract terms than concrete (specific), consumers find them more persuasive. Concrete attributes and experiences, it seems, are easier to perceive as limited characteristics, not representative of the whole, so to speak.

As I have argued time and again, good science relies upon precision and specificity — both in the practice of the science AND the communication of it. Diligent scientists and science writers “dot their ‘I’s and cross their ‘T’s;” they share the nitty-gritty about how they conducted their study and they disclose the results without exaggeration or obfuscation. They are exact.

Is it possible that this is why “selling science” to the general public is difficult? Could be. I also wonder whether abstract/general talk and writing is looser, in a sense, providing more wiggle room for people to inject meaning into. Something like an astrological profile. When those get too specific, too concrete, they lose their appeal. (With less broad verbal strokes, the limits are easier to see.)

So what does this all mean? Should we change the way we talk about science? Should we water it down and speak in generalities? Maybe. Maybe in some situations. But as a past educator and a person who feels strongly about education, my hunch is that we might be able to educate young minds to understand science better and find its precision more persuasive then the sloppier language of sales pitches.

One can hope.

Technorati Links: language, psychology, science

Trackback URI | Comments RSS