I reviewed a book proposal last week. Nothing is remarkable about that, but there was a section in one of the sample chapters on ‘Knowing your audience’. One of the points it made was that people have a story, their own internal narrative against which all external events are measured, and into which all stimuli must be assimilated if they are to make sense.<\/p>\n
\nThis is pretty much why Sarah Palin said what she did, and why the usual suspects got so upset about it: she was playing true to type and understanding the isolationist leanings of the Republican faithful, and being criticized by those who have the stage instruction “Be scandalized by anything that could possibly be an attack on science” hard-wired into their DNA.<\/p>\n
\nIt makes me think that Palin is perhaps the better communicator: she knew her audience, while her critics fail to understand what they have to do to reach those same people.<\/p>\n
\nWe’ve seen this before (and please, can we forget about Sarah bloody Palin come Tuesday?), in different contexts.<\/p>\n
\nWhen someone (anyone: I’m not pointing fingers. This time) says that religion is superstition, or that faith is believing something untrue, then not only are they displaying a breath-taking ignorance but also failing to communicate with those very people they need to reach. They are not taking into account the internal narrative. <\/p>\n
\nWe are, in many cases, dealing with rational people, who have had an experience (or a series of them) that makes sense. That can be explained if certain assumptions are true. Who would claim that their faith is based on evidence. Failure to understand that, to grasp that they have a totally internally consistent story (a ‘worldview’, if you must), results in a failure to understand them and ultimately a failure to communicate. These are not, on the whole, people who deliberately set out to destroy science (and in fact many of them have a great deal of respect for science; they just fail to understand how it works).<\/p>\n
\nYou are then viewed as arrogant, as condescending, as ignorant and irrelevant (see Jenny’s comment<\/a>.) And that’s before they start to feel that you’re threatening the most important thing in their life. (You might think that this serves them right, and it’s their own lookout, and we’ll have a good laugh at their expense. Sadly, if you do think that it proves my point somewhat).<\/p>\n \nEqually, many religious people (I use the term broadly) fail to understand the nature of scientific enquiry, let alone what drives scientists. They do not realize, for example, that I do science because I like to find out how things work. That when I sit in a seminar and see the F-type ATPase<\/a> and think to myself ‘How the fuck did that<\/em> evolve?’ I don’t say ‘God did it’. I say ‘Let’s find out’. If God did do it, I want to know “how”:http:\/\/tinyurl.com\/5wqca8<\/em>. <\/p>\n \nJust as they don’t understand the scientific method (and why should they?), these are people who do not understand the scientist’s<\/em> inner narrative. Indeed, looking around, they might be forgiven for thinking that scientists exist to disprove faith in God. <\/p>\n \nBut maybe if they understood my inner narrative, and I theirs, we could have some meaningful discussions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I reviewed a book proposal last week. Nothing is remarkable about that, but there was a section in one of the sample chapters on ‘Knowing your audience’. One of the points it made was that people have a story, their … Continue reading