Public participation in scientific endeavors is one
of the many benefits brought with the advent of the internet. One of the most
infamous side-effects of misinterpreted or skimmed science is blatant
misinformation that can continuously spread from person to person until public passively
disregards the original information. This often happens at various levels and
through degenerative stages of condensing the original point of a complex experiment
to an often unnuanced headline. In this blog, I will be dissecting the layers
of information condensation that takes place when information is sent out into
the wide fields of the internet. To complete this analysis, I will be looking
at two contexts of communication:
- - The title of a Reddit post from “r/Today
I Learned”
- - The article from Stanford News that
presents the findings of the research form the paper titled "
More specifically, I will be using an article from
the Stanford News and attempting to see if the article properly translates the
points of the original paper both in content and intent. This blog article is a
study into the translating abilities of the Plain Style and ethical
accountability of communicators, journalists, and writers alike.
Though we live with constant access to sources of
information, many people often absorb small bites of information without
considering the context of its origin. In this case, the initial contact with
information comes from a Reddit post with the title:
TIL (Today I Learned) walking before
solving a problem improves your creativity by an average of 60%.
For the average reader, new discoveries can dull the
mind’s critical thinking: “Oh, that’s neat! Maybe I’ll take a stroll the next
time I need to do homework.” This line of thinking is incomplete, as the study
explains that walking or other minor exercises do not affect focused thinking.
Most of the context surrounding this study is missing from this headline,
leaving the reader with only a small piece of the puzzle. This lack of context
would perpetuate a Misleading Vividness fallacy, in which a person jumps to a
conclusion based on an anecdote or small piece of information as the basis for
their knowledge: “Well, I can’t seem to figure it out. I’ve been taking walks
for the past week but still can’t comprehend this mathematic proof…”
This cognitive dissonance could be caused by the
placement of “creative” behind the subject “problem-solving”. The reader will internalize
the message as: “I can now solve problems more creative by walking” compared to
“I can solve problems centered around creativity by walking”. Though the
difference is subtle, the implications of the Stanford Article are missed in
this third level of condensation.
We should then look to see if the Reddit patron was
misled by improper translation on the part of May Wong from Stanford News. The
article opens by dropping the names of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, two
high-status celebrities who are used to create a sense of prestige and validity
outside of the hard science. However, Wong hedges her introduction by directing
the reader’s attention to the scientific paper in question in the next paragraph.
This brings the reader’s back into the conversation of scientific inquiry and
critical thinking that is necessary to understand the nuances of the subject.
Quotes directly from the researcher explaining nuances and their thoughts on
the study add validity and personality to study, a detail spared in the
monotony of the Official Style.
Additionally, Wong appears to consider the audience
she is writing for. This can be seen in the structure of information: the
specific findings of the research are summarized in the first section, an
explanation for the experimental methods in the second section, and the further
context in the final section. This falls in line with the standards of
hierarchical writing in news organizations, with the most important and
pressing information at the top with extenuating circumstances and future
research near the bottom. The Plain Style is only further solidified by the
passive observation of a natural line of questioning: 1) What did the
scientists find? 2) How did they find it? 3) What else can be said about this
experiment?
Adherence to the Plain Style’s ability to translate
appears throughout the article:
“Divergent thinking is a thought process or method
used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions.”
This is a quick, accessible definition of a
seemingly esoteric topic. This is further followed by an equally easy explanation
of the experiment to test the presented psychological process. Rather than rely
on the statics-centric vocabulary to feign authority, Wong cuts as much
technicality from the paper in favor of a clear narrative structure for the reader;
rather than simply laying out a detailed plot, Wong provides a satisfactory
story. Wong’s clean and pertinent definitions are in clear opposition to the
Official Style, which aims to obscure information behind a veneer of expertise
and extenuating context. This opposition can be seen further into the article,
where Wong relays the statistically insignificant correlation between walking
and focused thinking. While these details are important form an academic perspective,
the difference between the two cognitive processes has already been defined by
the explicit citing of “creative thought” throughout the initial introduction.
While I would like to claim that I have found an instance of poorly written science, I can only say that a thin layer of condescending information is found in this instance. A layer of miscommunication was presented at the onset
with a catchy, but an inaccurate headline from a Reddit user. I would like to
criticize this patron a little more, but the work done by May Wong does an excellent job of presenting not only factually accurate information for average readers and
provides the context in a very accessible format. Not only does the Stanford News
article counter-act the Official Style, but it also allows Plain-Style articles to actively
bridge the gap between the scientifically inclined and the average reader
looking to learn on their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment