Talk to the Elephant
In his 2006 book The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt sets down a compelling metaphor for how the conscious mind works. "Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control over what the elephant does."
This simple metaphor (in fact the whole book) is a worthy springboard into the question of how to communicate important messages on a mass scale, and the paradoxical questions that face science writers and educators, in particular: What do elephants care about what riders think? Or, perhaps as Woody Allen exclaims in Sleeper, when scientists of the future plan to tinker with his gray matter, "My brain! That's my second favorite organ!"
In his new mocku-/documentary/comedy, "Sizzle," scientist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson talks to the elephants lurking in each of us. At the beginning of the movie, Randy, playing a scientist-turned-filmmaker, meets a Malibu gay couple and convinces them to back his global warming movie. Mitch explains that he and partner Brian care passionately about global warming, but need Randy to solve a problem for them: "We just don't know why we're upset," Mitch says. (To which Brian quips, "Most mornings I'm upset and I don't know why.") That's the elephant talking — or on occasion, the polar bear.
Spoiling parts of movies is a pet peeve. But I will go out on a limb to say that the movie is about Randy and his coterie's struggle to communicate to the the rider, when he should be trying to figure out how to reach the elephant.
For the last couple of years, polemics have flown back and forth through the blogosphere over how science should be framed for non-scientists, particularly media and their audiences. The proponents of "framing science" — Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum (disclosure: A friend and colleague), and Olson — have very articulately defined the phrase and activated it in the blogosphere and media. Matthew C. Nisbet, of American University, coined the phrase in 2003.
"Sizzle" brings the framing science debate to the big screen, an illustration of how to put science, particularly climate science, before lay people whose attention wanders before making it out of the the introductory paragrpah to the IPCC's 2007 Working Group I Statement for Policymakers. It's a though-provoking problem. Several weeks ago, the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program issued a fat report called, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. The report is a synthesis of an enormous amount of science, with new modeling to complement it. How should such a report be communicated to the public. The report itself speaks to our riders. How might a filmmaker or writer turn this report, geared toward riders, into a popular work geared toward elephants? It's an important question for the future of communicating climate science, and one that Sizzle provides a thoughtful answer to.
I'd be remiss not to talk about Olson's approach vis-a-vis The Carbon Age, which officially launched yesterday. My book for the most part speaks to curiosity, interest, and a desire to understand how the world seems to work — with entertainment sprinkled all the way through. Sizzle and The Carbon Age are an unlikely duo, but trying to achieve the same goal: Communicate the climate crisis and move people to act. My book is less self-conscious than Sizzle about how science "should" be presented. I was just trying to make sense of the world and fit it into 304 pages. Whether that constitutes "framing" or just "writing a rigorous, highly structured popular book" is for others to decide — in close consultation, of course, with whatever elephants may be in the room!
This simple metaphor (in fact the whole book) is a worthy springboard into the question of how to communicate important messages on a mass scale, and the paradoxical questions that face science writers and educators, in particular: What do elephants care about what riders think? Or, perhaps as Woody Allen exclaims in Sleeper, when scientists of the future plan to tinker with his gray matter, "My brain! That's my second favorite organ!"
In his new mocku-/documentary/comedy, "Sizzle," scientist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson talks to the elephants lurking in each of us. At the beginning of the movie, Randy, playing a scientist-turned-filmmaker, meets a Malibu gay couple and convinces them to back his global warming movie. Mitch explains that he and partner Brian care passionately about global warming, but need Randy to solve a problem for them: "We just don't know why we're upset," Mitch says. (To which Brian quips, "Most mornings I'm upset and I don't know why.") That's the elephant talking — or on occasion, the polar bear.
Spoiling parts of movies is a pet peeve. But I will go out on a limb to say that the movie is about Randy and his coterie's struggle to communicate to the the rider, when he should be trying to figure out how to reach the elephant.
For the last couple of years, polemics have flown back and forth through the blogosphere over how science should be framed for non-scientists, particularly media and their audiences. The proponents of "framing science" — Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum (disclosure: A friend and colleague), and Olson — have very articulately defined the phrase and activated it in the blogosphere and media. Matthew C. Nisbet, of American University, coined the phrase in 2003.
"Sizzle" brings the framing science debate to the big screen, an illustration of how to put science, particularly climate science, before lay people whose attention wanders before making it out of the the introductory paragrpah to the IPCC's 2007 Working Group I Statement for Policymakers. It's a though-provoking problem. Several weeks ago, the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program issued a fat report called, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. The report is a synthesis of an enormous amount of science, with new modeling to complement it. How should such a report be communicated to the public. The report itself speaks to our riders. How might a filmmaker or writer turn this report, geared toward riders, into a popular work geared toward elephants? It's an important question for the future of communicating climate science, and one that Sizzle provides a thoughtful answer to.
I'd be remiss not to talk about Olson's approach vis-a-vis The Carbon Age, which officially launched yesterday. My book for the most part speaks to curiosity, interest, and a desire to understand how the world seems to work — with entertainment sprinkled all the way through. Sizzle and The Carbon Age are an unlikely duo, but trying to achieve the same goal: Communicate the climate crisis and move people to act. My book is less self-conscious than Sizzle about how science "should" be presented. I was just trying to make sense of the world and fit it into 304 pages. Whether that constitutes "framing" or just "writing a rigorous, highly structured popular book" is for others to decide — in close consultation, of course, with whatever elephants may be in the room!
Posted by Eric Roston at 7/15/2008 12:34 AM 
Categories: Politics,Truth in Fiction,Civil Society,Global Warming,Science communication,media,Humor,Reviews
Categories: Politics,Truth in Fiction,Civil Society,Global Warming,Science communication,media,Humor,Reviews
Comments