Science Communication in an Age of Tribal Opinions
My thoughts on the prevalence of tribal opinions on social media and what this means for science communication.
I read an article earlier this week on how digital communication is affecting our empathy (I’ve provided the link to the article at the end of this post). The article talked about this lack of empathy fuelling binary and almost tribal opinions online.
Having been more active on social media over the last few years, I have often marvelled at the inability to accept differing opinions on these platforms. Everyday I see posts and comments of people leaning far left or far right, seldom landing in the middle. Pragmatism and nuance are suffocated under a blanket of rigid opinions that change with the values of the day. What is and isn’t appropriate, what is and isn’t acceptable seems to be dictated by what is and isn’t trending.
I’ve sat with this for some time, trying to understand why this is the case, and I’ve come to believe it’s the addictive incentives behind these platforms which fuel thoughtless discourse. I’m going to condense my thoughts to social media, as opposed to the internet more broadly. The allusive social media algorithms reward content that garners a high level of engagement (likes, comments, views, etc.). The never ending conveyor belt of content shared on social media makes it harder to capture people’s attention. What is it about your content that distinguishes it from the bottomless pit of all the other content online? Usually, the answer is controversy.
Controversial opinions get more traction online. People are more likely to momentarily stop their mindless scrolling for a headline like “AI is a threat to humanity” compared to a more accurate headline like “AI will present risks, as all technologies do”.
It’s easy to step back and say, well that’s just social media, if you don’t like it, get off social media. To some extent, I agree with this; however, this stance seems to neglect the real world impacts of tribal opinions. The online world and the real world are not independent of one another. This idea of online cultures existing only within the ethers of the internet or within specific platforms is categorically false.
I have been a part of meetings, workshops, conferences, etc. where I have had to field questions about AI imploding the universe (I’m embellishing a little here to help paint a picture). While I can understand where some concerns may have come from, I’m often perplexed by the binary stances people choose to take in their opinions.
When I scroll through social media, I am bombarded by clickbait headlines bannering misinformed content. I have enough knowledge about AI, and emerging technology more broadly, to be able to step back and see past the avalanche of, let’s be honest, crappy content, but not everyone is in the same position.
It is far easier to find and freely access misinformation than it is to find credible and factually correct information. One frustrating element of being an academic is having my research locked behind a paywall. On top of that, the work itself is rarely accessible or relatable to a general audience. This is true for most traditional academic publications. They’re written for a specific audience - other subject matter experts working in the same niche field.
Australia’s chief scientist, Cathy Foley, has embarked on an open access strategy for Australia. The idea behind this strategy is that it’s ridiculous for misinformation to be easily and freely accessible while publicly funding research is hidden behind paywalls. The strategy aims to permanently and freely make research literature available online for any Australian to read.
This strategy is a huge step forward for the Australian academic industry, but what also needs to change is how research is communicated to general audiences that sit outside of niche academic bubbles. In this day and age of addictive social media, clickbait headlines and tribal opinions bombarding our online platforms, science communication has never been more crucial.
I have a love-hate relationship with social media. On the one hand I love being able to share my work and research with a broad audience. I love the relationships and networks these platforms have allowed me to build over the last few years. But what I hate is the inauthentic incentives underlying these platforms.
Because these platforms are designed to be addictive, they incentivise content that keeps you on the platform. They are not designed to encourage you to leave the platform to read an academic article about AI, rather, they are designed to get you to engage on the platform about that topic. This is why clickbait headlines and controversial statements garner so much online attention. They attract engagement on the platform itself.
Different communication mediums require different communication methods. Social media is its own communication medium. The combination of addictive platforms, short attention spans and incentivised engagement fuels the prevalence of catchy and controversial content that is, more often than not, misinformed. When you start with that kind of foundation, it’s difficult to get to a point of pragmatic and reasonable discourse. It’s why we see tribal opinions and a lack of empathy online.
I am still learning to navigate social media as a tool for my academic research. I use different approaches for LinkedIn and Instagram when communicating not only my work, but my field of research more broadly. I don’t know how engaging or impactful my content is, but exploring different communication methods has been a daunting learning curve. Especially in the world of social media that seems more and more unforgiving to nuance, pragmatism and just generally factual information.
Article referenced in this blog post: New tribal instinct
Some additional information on Australia’s open access strategy: Unlocking the academic library: Open Access
