Us vs. them isn’t working

When we start to notice something, we often see it everywhere. We wonder how before we only saw it rarely, or not at all. But, that’s the amazing work awareness can do for us. It’s one of those experiences that throws the limitations of our cognitive abilities into focus, even if briefly — a needed dose of humility about what our brains can and cannot do. I saw the quote “Don’t believe everything you think” on a bumper sticker yesterday – I had forgotten how much I like it.

Here’s the thing I’m seeing everywhere lately — the us (scientists) vs. them (others) narrative. It presents as if we have a world of scientists living in their clean, white labs and then across the tracks is the world of others — most often called “the public” or “lay people.” It’s a narrative we (at least in my generation) have been fed since birth — in education and through all types of media. It is language that has felt fully justified and normalized within our culture (at least within scientific culture). I think it’s counterproductive and I might even go so far as saying dangerous. We are living in a time when it would serve us well to be very aware of such narratives and their potential effects on social cohesion — as well as to be aware that there is so much we are not yet aware of. It is quite humbling.

I think of myself as a scientist and I suspect most people reading this consider themselves to be scientists. So, my writing on this topic does come from that place.

Scientists vs. Others

Us vs. them doesn’t work when the goal is open sharing of information and conversation. Us vs. them turns the goal into winning. It promotes cohesion within each team, but not among individuals across teams. When the goal is to win, when the object is to beat the other side, it is nearly impossible to have coherent, productive conversations. We are living in a time of great divides that feel as if they are growing on a daily basis.

Scientists often talk of how to get information out to “the public” or how to convey information in a way “the public can understand.” The motivation behind these words grows out of good intentions and a sense of responsibility to disseminate work in a meaningful way beyond the silos existing in academia and scientific culture. But good intentions aren’t enough to cover up the air of condescension, elitism, and arrogance that is often implied through the us vs. them narrative language. The tone can make it difficult for “others” to take in the information, or even want to, even for those scientists with the best of intentions and no conscious awareness of what might be implied. We all know (through plenty of mistakes) what a huge effect tone can have on our daily interactions with other humans, and this has to apply on a larger scale as well.

I see this as part of an enormous topic related to the importance of humility in science. I read a draft essay a few of days ago that I generally agreed with, but that left a very sour taste in my mouth. It took reading it a couple of times for me to understand where the sourness came from — it was the scientists vs. others tone running underneath and coloring all the words. So this post is just a few thoughts for today that I wanted to put on paper after that experience.

Scientists are part of the public

As a culture, we tend to use the language, and maybe even believe, that scientists are a separate group from “the public.” And, I think it’s fair to say that a hierarchy is often implied — with scientists sitting above “the public” with their knowledge and credibility. I understand what’s meant by the language, but do not believe we think enough about what is implied and the message it sends to those perfectly capable thinkers in the “public” group who didn’t choose a career that affords them the label of “scientist.”

We are not a society split into “scientists” and “others.” A person who does work as a scientist may study a very, very thin slice of the world. They may have a great deal of expertise and knowledge in a very specific area. They may have a PhD earned by dedicating years of their life to studying some small thing in minute detail. But when it comes to the millions of other topics studied by others, the scientist is does not have expertise just because they are labeled a scientist. They are just a member of the public.

Scientists are part of the public. Scientists are “lay people.”

Science should not be about winning a debate

Will science win out? This was part of the theme of the draft essay I read. Who or what is science competing against? We need to ask ourselves this question and if the need-to-win mindset is at all productive. Will such language lead to joint listening and openness to considering different viewpoints and new information? I see no reason to believe so.

We are all humans. Yes, even the scientists.

How do you know what you know? How often do you ask yourself that or question where your knowledge and beliefs come from? Humans make mistakes, and a lot of them, every day. Choosing a career that affords the label of “scientist” does not imply we are immune to cognitive mistakes and lack of awareness that all other humans suffer from as well. Science is not separate from the humans carrying it out and communicating about it. The belief that science somehow rises above the usual human faults in logic and communication is itself rather unscientific. Just because we want something to be “objective” and super-human, does not mean it actually is. I think letting go of this belief is a crucial first step in changing the us vs. them narrative in science communication.