- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/22315382
You must log in or register to comment.
I find it interesting that within the context of the comic, neither character is using media of any sort.
The soapbox/pedestal is the metaphor for media
It was the media up until 150 years ago
I find it interesting that within the context of the comic, neither character is using metaphor of any sort.
When the wise man points to the rising trend, the fool looks at the local minimum.
“My ignorance is just as good as your facts.”
I think it’s more about specialization. An actual expert is specialized in a very small area. This is not as interesting as someone who claims to have unlocked the mysteries of the universe.
I think Jordan Peterson is a great example. He’s an expert in a tiny research area related to alcoholism. But he lectures about chaos dragons, cleaning your room, etc. Which is going to make more fame/money for him?
I think this timeline is designed to be my villain origin story
Science man - kills popular people with well researched traps
Perhaps it’s a difference in communication experience, and effectiveness? Maybe the person who is already famous has lots of experience with talking to people and conveying information — perhaps they make more efficient use of a small amount of information — whereas the person with a lot of experience on the subject matter, but is poor at communication, is unable to effectively communicate the subject matter. One must be able to retain people’s attention to effectively communicate; this takes skill.
I also think the audience plays a roll. If they are eating it up, they will keep spewing it.
It definitely is imo.
The fields jargon is necessary for the experts to talk effeciently to each other, then it becomes second nature for them.
Then, when they have to talk about their expertise to the public, nothing is retained, actionable or even understood, because there is simply not a common vocabulary backed by the same experiences.
At best you get a confused public, at worst they react with apprehension.
Youd need seasoned science communicators, capable to bridge the “culture” of the public and the one of the experts, which is hard.
Plus, the skills to become an expert are often very different to the ones that a science communicator needs, like summarising in an engrossing way, glossing over the right amount of boring details, empathy and patience for an unresponsive audience…
