In lieu of a rant...

It's like Sizzle tried to make love to the scientists, but none of the scientists were satisfied, so all of Sizzle's friends had to reassure it that scientists are just no good in bed.

Brian and Blake, I think you are right on.
I am a musician who happens to enjoy getting educated a little more in a field I used to think was boring by lurking around ScienceBlogs.
I see the exact same reactions by some composers, directors, etc. when someone doesn't like their work. It's not the work that is bad, oh no, it's the audience for not being smart enough, imaginative enough, learned enough to 'get' how great the work actually is. Sometimes, this may be true, but for the most part it is a lot of ego petting.
Many of the reviews of Sizzle that I have seen here are well thought out, have some good constructive criticism (if sometimes harsh) and pertinent questions directed at the filmmaker and those who are championing the film. Sad to know that they are falling on deaf ears...

What an excellent idea, and an excellent picture...

NOW -

Can we now, officially, refer to Randy Olson as a Pocking Dodo?

A ring-tailed lemur is way better and cooler than a rant. :) Lemurs are teh awesome. :)

That was the thought. I was going to go with the baby prairie dog, but I figured I'd save that for tomorrow. I'm actually headed back to the Bronx zoo tomorrow to re-do some of my shots so there will probably be more cool ring-tailed critters from Madagascar up here in the near future.

Exactly my thinking. When I got that email from Randy Olson ("Sizzle Tuesday: Mission Accomplished" - oh, how appropriate, on so many levels - do you think he wrote that from the deck of an aircraft carrier perchance?) I felt really pissed off, but then thought the better of whingeing publicly.

P.S. Blake Stacey wins a gold star for analogy of the week.

Hooray! I win a gold star! Life is good — forever!

(-:

Incidentally, I'm not much of a photographer, but I do have a heap of digital snapshots on the ol' hard drive. I might adopt this "picture instead of rant" policy, at least as a complement to my other idea, writing sonnets to anime characters instead of ranting.

Don't let the criticisms of ignorant people keep you from continuing to write such astute reviews. Whenever people resort to the "you just don't get it" response, you know they can't defend themselves and that they probably don't comprehend your criticisms anyway.

A bigger problem is the idea that anyone who enjoys analysis and research and who doesn't conform to shallow consumer culture is a socially unacceptable "dweeb," "nerd," or "geek." I've seen very capable, insightful science grad students refuse to talk about their research interests for fear of seeming "uncool," i.e. interested in something besides pop culture. Very disheartening.

For years now, Mooney, Nisbet & Co. have been saying that scientists are poor communicators and need to use framing to get their point across.

And the science community said, "Sounds interesting. What kind of frames do you have in mind?" And the reply would come back, "Well, you are poor communicators, and you need to adopt framing techniques in order to communicate better." And the scientists would respond with, "Okay, okay, but what frames specifically?" And Mooney-Nisbet would say, with exasperation, "Scientists are poor communicators. Framing will help them communicate better." "Who's on first?" "Yes." "The man playing first base." "Who." "That's what I'm asking you!"

You see, what we in the audience know that Bud Abbot doesn't is that the first baseman's actual name is "Who," or perhaps "Hu," a common Chinese surname. But I digress.

Olson and Mooney were counting on bad reviews -- that was the mission, and it was accomplished. The reason it seems like they're not engaging with the substance of the bad reviews is because they're not. They're using the bad reviews to reinforce their central framing device: "Scientists are poor communicators." Now, I'm not exactly sure how this is supposed to increase respect for science in the public's eye, but it seems pretty clear that this is in fact the frame they have chosen.

From Mooney's blog:

Overall, at the screening I continued to feel struck by the incredible gap that exists between most ScienceBloggers, and most others, in terms of their responses to this film.

The segment of the population known as "most others", it seems, is the audience of "Outfest" in Los Angeles.

The segment of the population known as "most others", it seems, is the audience of "Outfest" in Los Angeles.

And what a shock that overall the audience liked it when the entire cast of the film was in attendance.

The only reason we have for thinking the people at Outfest loved the movie was because Mooney has said so. I'll wait until I see some independent reviews before I accept his version of events. His perception isn't necessarily true. Perhaps we're talking a few titters of laughter and polite applause.

In my experience, movies are better when seen on the largest screen possible, and in good company. (A Beautiful Mind quite decidedly paled on a second viewing, for example, the first having been with friends at the cinema and the second months later at home on DVD.) A "carnival atmosphere" might well make people more eager to laugh and applaud; what plays nicely at Outfest might fare poorly at the local Cineplex 36.

Just a thought.

This is the vibe I'm getting from Mooney: Scientists are criticizing me for criticizing them. Certainly this proves that they don't know how to take criticism!

Meh. I still like Chris's stuff, especially the Republican War on Science. And the framing idea is good in general, but its specific applications are often rather dubious. I think he's diagnosed a real problem but doesn't know how to treat it. But where he becomes irksome is when he responds to criticism from others. Often his response is either 1.) A public demand for a public apology, 2.) To interpret the criticism as confirming that he was right all along, or 3.) To post a "response" to the criticism that doesn't actually respond to any criticism at all. Neither is a good way to engage a critic.

Unfortunately, these things get escalated by loudmouthed commenters who rile him up by calling him a "concern troll" or "closet creationist" or other bullshit. And, again, the way he responds to these things, he comes off looking bad, even though he's well-meaning and at least partially correct in what he's saying.

I think if Mooney, Nisbet, and Olson spent more time focusing on how they communicate with scientists, and if other scientists took some of what they're saying more to heart, a lot of the acrimony would disappear. These guys aren't wrong, they're just (ironically) not doing a good job of engaging their target audience. (However, I'm still rather peeved by Olson's campaign of issuing demands that scientists "Stop being such a scientist", defining "being such as scientist" as a list of traits that are suspiciously similar to high functioning autism. If he thinks that issuing a demand that people change their personality types is going to be effective, he's delusional.)

leemerz iz teh WIN!!!1! mush betr den ratz. oops i ment rantz.

Presenting:
Mooney & Nisbet's Concise Guide to Science Communication!

Just follow these easy instructions:

[1] "Scientists are poor communicators. Framing will help them communicate better."

[2] "Okay, okay, but what frames specifically?"

[3] "Scientists are poor communicators. Framing will help them communicate better."

[4] Repeat setps [2]-[3] as needed.

KOMUNIKAYSHUN XPRTZ FAIL.

Blake - "my other idea, writing sonnets to anime characters" - I knew I'd win you over!

My comments on Chris Mooney's blog were moderated out, despite containing constructive, albeit a little harsh criticism. You clearly had a much better idea about how to deal with this frankly petty little game than I did :).