Framing Beyond Atheism

For example, in this discussion thread, you are posting and articulating an opinion with very little knowledge of the research on framing, the research in the area of democratic competency and citizen decision-making, what my published research actually says, or without having ever talked to me about the issue or attended one of my lectures.

And you don't seem to like it one bit. Accepting for the moment that your characterisation of Steve is true (which it may not be), does this not illustrate some of the hazards of relying on framing?

Good post. Amazing they're still briefing staffers on the hockey stick stuff. You're right, we need to be prepared.

Why aren't they willing to throw a woman in with PZ, Laden, Nisbet, and Mooney? With posts like this from Sheril, I think the guys might be scared! ;>

Sheril, you have established the spin; "Clearly, science hasn't gotten the message out in a manner that resonates with the public and policymakers."

THEREFORE, science and the glaring inability of scientists to communicate their science must be the problem.

Logic can be described as the "art of going wrong with confidence."

Sheril,
You're shortchanging the point of contention between PZ and Nisbet. What lies at the heart of their debate is more important than any particular environmental threat, even climate change. In regards to framing, the debate between the two men comes down to integrity and honesty in the way that science is reported. No matter how important the issue is, if the scientific community (and science reporters) does not continue to make sure that it maintains the highest levels of integrity and honesty through (at least) continual self examination, then no one will trust it and your advocacy for any issue may be met with deaf ears.

Sheril,
Thanks for your thoughts. I've always followed the lead of EO Wilson in arguing that the New Atheists are a major distraction from far more serious questions such as climate change.

Btw, it certainly is an amazingly male rhetoric isn't?

--Matt

Longtime lurker, but it seems to me you are suggesting that we follow the example of a charlatan like Michael Crichton in order to be successful. Aping the shameless shames us only.

If the only way to win hearts and minds is distortion of the facts to fit an ideology, then we as a country are in serious trouble.

How can you miss it!

Nisbet, the irrepressible framing genius, is now reframing the atheist debate as. " Hey lookie, these scoundrelous atheists are distracting us from more serious questions such as climate change."

Mr Nisbet, you are beneath contempt.

And let's pitch the feminist angle, too. Feminism is a terrific hook. Gender, gender; that will help us fog up the debate.

Not what I'm suggesting at all Sirrus, just that we must be better prepared to explain critical issues effectively in an engaging manner.

Remembering Kenneth Rexroth.

"I got the fat poet in the corner. I told him that he was selling shit, and I wasn't going to let him get away with it."

Sheril, who in the name of sweet baby Jesus, Muhammad, Bhudda, science or literature would be opposed to explaining anything effectively in an engaging manner?

Cows eat grass.

Sheril,

I am a working physicist and an athiest with no financial interest in any "carbon intensive" enterprise. I take issue with your following statement. "In other words, the frame we provide for a topic - especially a critical one like climate change - dictates the reception and actions that follow."

My reservations about the link between antrhpogenic CO2 and the slight increase in global average temperature, and the attendant obligatorially cataclismic scenarios, have nothing to do with the way that proponents have "framed" their contentions.

Quite to the contrary the overwrought and insidiously deceptive emotional appeals, running the gambit from overheated headlines to frieght train vs. little girl "public service" spots reinforce the paucity and unconvincing nature of the actual scientific evidence behind the scare tactics.

I think AGW proponents have done an amazingly good job of working up the fear, and guilt, of the public to the point that most surveys indicate that a majority of people think that American SUVs are over heating the planet. Kudos!

It's only when presented with an actual examination of the scientific evidence that people realize that it's an extremely weak theory whose proposed cure is worse than the disease.

As is evidenced from the results of an Intelligence Squared/NPR sponsored debate held in March of 2007 on the topic "Global warming is not a crisis."

Before the debate a poll of the audience showed that
about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

Apparently when people hear a clear presentation of the facts it doesn't turn out too well for the AGW fear mongers. So please stop acting like all you have to do is find a way to "frame" the issue for the drooling masses. Obfuscation, fearmongering and outright distortion are your best bets. You probably want to stick with what's working.

"Quite to the contrary the overwrought and insidiously deceptive emotional appeals, running the gambit from overheated headlines to frieght train vs. little girl "public service" spots reinforce the paucity and unconvincing nature of the actual scientific evidence behind the scare tactics."

Hum, I'm wondering what you mean by "the apucity and unconvincing nature" of the evidence? Do you really require every atmorsperic and ecological scientist on the planet to conclude that global warming exists and has magnitude X? I think there are more peer-reviewed papers on global warming and it's driving forces then many current science subjects, including most of the marine resource management areas I deal with daily. Heck, the U.S. government has offered Endangered Species Act protection to whole populations of marine mammals without actually physically counting each and every one (and tagging them with some sort of unremovable satellite tag so we know where they are at all times). Instead we rely on population models to extrapolate for the few we can see whan they surface near us (whether on ships or land).

Science, done right and communicated properly, is NEVER about certainty. Doesn't matter the specific discipline. We all start out with a question, formulate a hypothesis based on available evidence, test the hypothesis, draw conclusions with some level of statistical confidence, and then go on to the next set of questions. We can't ever give definitive answers, especially predictive ones. And our "definitive" post-hoc answers only work if we're studying a subject for which there is record keeping to independently substaniate what we're saying.

I have always felt that framming isn't the issue - it's communication of the uncertainty built into each scientific endeavour. Decision makers like clear choices between A and B. They don't do well when scientists tell them you have choices A,B,C,D,E,F,G and each has some amount of overlap with it's nearest neighbor depending on how risk averse you want to be. We've seen this behavior for decaeds in commercial fisheries management.

So let's not worry about framing so much. Instead, let's learn how to communicate uncertainty in ways that don't cause its very existence to drown out the message. And for goodness sakes, let's embrace the uncertainty a few still have on climate change - after all, they will be with us in the boat if sea level does indeed rise.

So if science says we're at fault and need to alter our behavior, why hasn't there been the shift in global perception?

There has been a shift in public perception -- why else are hybrid cars now available? Why else are fluorescent bulbs a hot commodity? The lack of shift has been at the political level, where there are entrenched interests (including the denialist organizations, which do not seem to be genuinely grassroots, but instead representatives of various corporate interests). And as much as one might think that public opinion and policy should track, given that the US government continues to pursue a war opposed by a majority of its citizens, I don't know that one can expect better on this issue.

Matthew C. Nisbet:

it certainly is an amazingly male rhetoric isn't?

Dr. Nisbet, how can you possibly expect to be taken as a serious academic when you consistently devolve into name-calling and innuendo at the drop of a hat? And why should anyone accept your framing argument when you are clearly so appallingly bad at the practice, as this example shows? How are "male rhetoric" and "New Atheist Noise Machine" and other childish terms you routinely toss around any different in principle from what you attack folks like Dawkins for?

Tulse, you are one mean person to criticize an up and coming yuppie professor and poseur when he is only trying to help us get over our abject failure to communicate effectively.

What is next from a confrontational scoundrel like you? Don't you try to imply that those crib classes in rhetoric and doubletalking at Cornell were just fluff and foo-foo. Don't you dare!

Besides, gender/feminism is a terrific hook, or I don't know nothing about framing studies.

I found myself nodding in agreement with almost every word in Philip H.'s well-framed :) post, which he sums up as follows:

So let's not worry about framing so much. Instead, let's learn how to communicate uncertainty in ways that don't cause its very existence to drown out the message. And for goodness sakes, let's embrace the uncertainty a few still have on climate change - after all, they will be with us in the boat if sea level does indeed rise.

The only addendum I would include is that the policy-makers will also be in that boat (or ark), so let's hope they enable governments to provide oars and landing places for it to unload its occupants.

I have said before, I think all this arguing about framing is a waste of time. And Lance's reaction also demonstrates that too much emphasis on how you frame your argument adds a bad odor to otherwise good science.

Framing is appropriate for political argumentation, but clarity and honest presentation lie at the heart of good scientific communication.

For those in the Pittsburgh area who want to see my approach to communicating science to a general audience, click my name for information about a talk called "Ten Decades, Ten Physicists: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century."

Included will be a tidbit about Pauli's first meeting with God. Atheists, neo-atheists, believers, and agnostics will all get a chuckle out of that.

Gosh, gerald, when you put it like that, it all becomes so clear!!! I guess I never heard anyone present the argument in quite that way!!! I am in awe, helpless to disagree before your profound rhetorical skillz!!! My opinion is mere putty in your framingly sophisticated hands!!!

Tulse,
The term reflects nothing but reality. Ninety five percent of the comments at the blogs on this are from men and the major players are all male.

When you knows how to frame, you whups em every time, sho nuff.

Mama says; "You cain't git ahead if'n you don't fibber and dance a bit."

Nisbet has reality down, too. It's a reflection. Probably has something to do with electromagnetism and quantum physics - yeah, quantum physics like in the film "What the bleep..."

BTW Tulse, it ain't mere everyday pissant skillz. It is a SKILL SET.
Memba, we are talking framing science here, so precision is critical, as in "male rhetoric."

Matthew C. Nisbet:

The term reflects nothing but reality. Ninety five percent of the comments at the blogs on this are from men and the major players are all male.

Are you referring to the general issue, or to the "New Atheists"? Certainly all the major players advocating framing are male. For that matter, I would be willing to bet that most prominent religious bloggers are male (certainly almost all prominent religious figures are male).

When we opened up the blog to free commenting, we knew we had to be vigilant. And now we have.

Sheril and I have agreed to ban Gerald Spezio. The comments above make it quite obvious why. In a previous thread, he actually compared Matthew Nisbet to Goebbels.

We don't like having to take this kind of action. But at the same time, we're responsible to all of our readers. Which means: Repeated ad hominem attacks or other behavior that adversely effects the quality and intellectual seriousness of commentary on this blog will not be tolerated.

-Mgmt.

Tulse,
Don't take it too seriously. The original comment I made was in part in reference to the picture of a "cock fight" that Sheril used in her post.

As Sheril displays adeptly, pictures are an important part of framing an argument. ;-)

In a previous thread, he actually compared Matthew Nisbet to Goebbels.

That is serious mischaracterization, to put it mildly. What he did was to directly quote a passage of Nisbet's that described "framing" as baldfaced propagandizing- encouraging people to form opinion WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE- and pointed out that Goebbels could readily recognize and endorse it. That happens to be at the very least a highly plausible and arguable proposition, however uncomfortable it may make you, and so the actual offenses against intellectual seriousness have been commitited by Nisbet, and now by you as well. In my opinion, you not only have an obligation to reinstate Spezio, but you owe both him and your readers an apology.

Steve,
To be clear: That statement was not "encouraging people to form opinion WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE," as you write. That's a widely broadcast distortion by Spezio and other commenters.

Rather, it was a descriptive statement of reality.

Re-read the Science article, listen to our talks online, or read other things I have written about the "low information" nature of the public. (In fact that term is not even my own, but was coined by Samuel Popkin in a classic work in political science called the Reasoning Voter.)

My central point is that more than sixty years of research shows that people make up their minds all the time in the absence of complete knowledge or even good amounts of information.

In our fragmented media system, a small group of people pay close attention to science and are well informed, while the vast majority literally tune out. That's not the democratic or scientific ideal, but unfortunately, it is reality.

Given this reality, the huge body of research on framing describes the process by which media messages combine with people's values to allow them to reach a decision and express their opinions with very little knowledge.

[For example, in this discussion thread, you are posting and articulating an opinion with very little knowledge of the research on framing, the research in the area of democratic competency and citizen decision-making, what my published research actually says, or without having ever talked to me about the issue or attended one of my lectures. Instead, you are basing your opinion and articulating an argument on how I have been selectively framed by people like Spezio or PZ at blogs that you have read online.]

Back to the literature on framing: This basic research on media influence, however, can also be turned into a communication technology. Like any technology, it can be used for either normatively bad or good purposes.

On the bad side, for example, the Discovery Institute and global warming skeptics have used framing to push their ideological interpretations of science.

On the good side, what we suggest is that the scientific community use framing as a counter, remaining true to the science, but recasting issues in ways that are personally meaningful and of relevance to the great majority of the public who otherwise really never pay attention to public affairs or science coverage.

Some members of this vast non-attentive public will rely exclusively on these frames to make decisions. That's unfortunate, but it is the reality of any public communication effort.

On the other hand, some portion of this wider public will be motivated to pay closer attention to the good sources of science media that are out there, thereby actually engaging in informal learning.

-->To sum up:

Using framing to engage the public will translate for some audience members into simply providing personally meaningful short cuts and heuristics that are consistent with scientific knowledge or its implications.

For other members of this vast non-attentive public, framing will translate into enhanced motivation to actually inform themselves and start paying closer attention to the science.

-->Just to also be clear:

Our suggestions are directed at using the media to reach an adult population who is done with formal schooling. Investment in traditional science education will always be the best tool for boost the public's actual knowledge of science.

I detail a lot more of this with Dietram Scheufele in the October cover story at The Scientist.

I hope this serves to clear things up.

Matt, here is the direct quote from you.

That's the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual's social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It's definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it's how things work in society.

Do you acknowledge that as an accurate quotation? If so, I'll be polite, and simply say that it simply does not accord with your disclaimer above. There is simply no ambiguity in "in the absence of knowledge", I'm afraid; it clearly means exactly what Spezio took it to mean. Ditto for "Some members of this vast non-attentive public will rely exclusively on these frames to make decisions. That's unfortunate, but it is the reality of any public communication effort." You know and admit that's the reality of what "framing" will actually "accomplish", but you want to do it anyway? Then you are advocating for it, like it or not. It does not help you to say that it is descriptive and not normative, since you yourself cite the literature to say that's what "framing" is about, and "framing" is what you advocate. Sorry, scientists do not need or want "friends" like you. I would turn your "advice" to the "New Atheists" back on you, and invite you to mind your own business. You simply do not understand what science is about, and are therefore in no position to offer advice on how to advocate for it effectively.

Steve,

I took the time to try to use this blog space to engage you in some informal learning about research on audiences, framing, and what I have argued.

But as is often the case in the mass media at large, clearly the information rich comment that I just left bounced straight off the perceptual screen of pre-existing interpretations that has been framed for you by others.

Indeed, your reaction and arguments are an example of how framing allows people to make up their minds with little or no information.

My comments will probably anger you and stir your emotions, but I am just using this exchange to point out to other readers how selective perceptions play out.

You're just bullshitting now, Matt, in an attempt to deny the plain sense of your words. (Or to put it another way, you're framing). But it's clear as day to anybody who reads your stuff that you are advocating selling science (or what you imagine is science) by the use of methods and appeals that are antiscientific and antirational. This is a contradiction in terms, and will not work. Again, as a scientist, I didn't ask for your "help" and I don't want it. Go sell soap, or politicians, instead; that's what you're equipped for.

Steve,
I will just add one comment for the benefit of others.

Given the realities of society, the media system, and audiences, if scientists don't evolve in their strategies, they will essentially be waving a white flag, surrendering their important role as communicators.

Tailoring communication efforts to fit with publics from different social and educational backgrounds is not an option, it is a necessity. Using communication tools such as framing to help citizens make connections between their everyday lives, their specific values, and the world of science is by no means a magical key to unlocking public appreciation for science, but it is a first step.

"Given the realities of society, the media system, and audiences, if scientists don't evolve in their strategies, they will essentially be waving a white flag, surrendering their important role as communicators."

Scientists (as scientists, as opposed to citizens or what have you) have "strategies", as you characterize them, which are directed to answering scientific questions (and communicating the results to other scientists). If there is an expectation from society that scientists communicate as other than scientists, i.e. in some other advocacy role, (which is clearly the case from "media" and "audiences", then the rules/roles will have to come from something other than a scientist's understanding of her role as a scientist. It is clearly unfair to characterize a scientist's reluctance to feel compelled (professionally) to be an advocate for anything other than the scientific evidence as "surrender".

Matthew C. Nisbet

Given the realities of society, the media system, and audiences, if scientists don't evolve in their strategies, they will essentially be waving a white flag, surrendering their important role as communicators.

Would one measure of how good a science communicator you are be reflected in the fact that you've written a book that has been on the New York Times bestseller list for almost a year?

The "God Delusion" is almost at the year mark now. Perhaps Richard Dawkins could give you advice on framing?

One thing I would suggest is to be aware of the fact that we're all just Ignorant Bayesian Belief Networks.

Perception is reality. That phrase seemed to my scientifically inclined mind to be nonsense when first I heard it. As a scientist I knew quite well that most of the greatest acheivements of science involved stripping away the illusions of human perception.

It saddened and sickened me to learn, mostly the hard way, that human beings generally prefer their own emotionally pleasing subjective perceptions to object reality. While we could devolve this discussion into a philosophical ping-pong match on the epistemology of science it does little good to argue that there is no "one" object reality when discussing matters of science.

Mr. Nesbit seems to be more interested in political outcomes than clearly presenting science. He wants scientists to "evolve strategies" to influence people to act in ways that he sees as politically advantageous. He no doubt invisions scientists as "neural marketers" pushing people's emotional buttons to swing them to their side. No self respecting scientist should engage in such techniques. They are antithetical to the scientific method.

I wonder if he would be equally sanguine about Richard Lindzen "evolving strategies" that would make his views about the problems with AGW theory "resonate" better with the general public.

Mr. Nesbit appears to be a PR guy trying to sell his point of view. Any connections to science seem to be ancillary to his marketing goals.

His comment, "My central point is that more than sixty years of research shows that people make up their minds all the time in the absence of complete knowledge or even good amounts of information." shows that it isn't knowledge or even information he intends to use to advance his goals but pure unadulterated emotionally charged spin, targeted at people's "perceptions" dressed up with a few graphs and a bit of jargon perhaps to make it appear "scientific".

Perhaps he can help design a Ministry of Scientific Truth under the next administration that will no doubt have come to power using techniques similar to the ones Nesbit advocates for scientists.

Will Wilkinson has a nice critique of framing and George Lakoff.

I'm trying to follow this, but.. can someone explain (succintly) just how framing and marketing (not the advertising part) are different? And how it relates to spin?

I suspect I'm not the only one wondering, and trying to find canonical definitions is not easy.

Peter Teiman here.
The issue of global warming has become so politically charged, the impirical truth may be hisdden forever
Peter Teiman

Perhaps Peter, although my allegiances are not with a specific political party, but rather my decisions are dictated by content. As far as global warming, I side with the best science available.

All right, guys. This framing stuff has annoyed me enough to blog about it.

Click my name for my take on "Framing Science: Spin or Communication?"

Fred,
Thanks for this discussion and your thoughts. I think you will find that the cover article appearing late next week at The Scientist addresses directly some of your questions and concerns. I look forward to discussing some more.

Best,
matt