Academics are Bad Communicators

[ValiantSalvatore]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Thomas Kuhn.

I like it! Never read about him till now!

Quote

Kuhn made several claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants.

It's similar to Ken Wilbers integral thinking and partial truth recognition in a more holonic sense I like it! 

[Vibroverse]

It is about learning how to do philosophy instead of knowing what this or that individual philosopher thinks. 

 

[eos_nyxia]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:14 PM, avatarse said:

I think one problem with this is that academics aren't concerned with communicating to laymen.  Every avenue of academics almost has it's own language and it's basically focused on communicating within their own dept.

Gods know you've heard enough from me about this over the years, lol.

Quote

As a result, it definately makes it hard to communicate what you're doing, but it may also make it less efficient to communicate to other people in your discipline.

Academics love their arcane-speak, especially in the arts/ social sciences. It depends on the flavour, values, and tradition of your specific department though.

We also had this convo: keeping outsiders out is very much on purpose sometimes.

It's like being able to technically talk in code in plain sight. No one knows what you're really talking about and all the implications of it except others who speak your language. Don't get it or think it's pointless? It's literally not meant for you. It's straight up a clique, a party, or a social gathering that YOU are not invited to.

Which is to say: understanding what they're actually talking about from the inside, and then coming to the conclusion that it's all a waste of time is actually different than being on the outside... and deciding it's a complete waste of time.

People in STEM and the other sciences are less like this, actually. Maybe this is why I preferred being around my good handful of scientist/ social scientist friends when I was in academia for my very short stint. Lab people just wanna lab in my experience. It's not that they want to be misunderstood. But literally, all of their time and energy goes into research, at least for a time.

They do not really... study communication either.

Quote

Ultimately I think we need to focus more in educational communicators as a hugely important part of all disciplines.  Physics and STEM in general has started to do a better job of this for sure.

I'm not sure if there is always a clear distinction or understanding in people's minds, especially the public. That wearing the hats of "professional academic" (as in researcher and communicator with other experts in their (sub)field) and "public communicator", (which includes teaching, but goes beyond this scope as well).

I've noticed that people tend to be better at one thing than the other, with some exceptions, obviously, and usually, this is tied to one's interests, personality, and possibly one's levels of introversion/ extroversion.

E.g. the researcher who just wants to research and talk to other experts, and doesn't really want to teach.

All good educators are first communicators, because they have the real passion for communicating well. They LOVE and get a sense of gratification and achievement from people getting it, and they keep wanting to do it, over and over and over, even if and when challenges come up and people do not just "get it", for whatever the reason is.

Being able to put more complicated ideas into the most simplistic and accessible form without interfering with the integrity of the ideas, that's a special skill. Being able to adjust the way you communicate, to different audiences and individuals, this is very much also a special sort of skill. I don't think people always appreciate and value this... one doesn't just "happen to be" an excellent educator and communicator even with a natural skill in communicating.

Honestly though? There is not a great intrinsic overlap between the skills required for research and teaching.

Obviously, if you want to keep and hoard all of your little secrets because you like the way it makes you feel, this is not going to work with educating. It's just not.

Hasn't everyone had this math teacher (>or insert other subject<) who was obviously really good at math, like it seemed so effortless to them, but they can't really teach it worth a shit? Even if they do really, actually, truly care, in some ways, they can't naturally relate to your struggle. They literally have to put themselves in people's shoes to learn how people struggle, to actually be able to communicate. In a way, it helps to have struggled in various ways because you'll empathize and you won't overlook not understanding easily.

Edited November 13, 2022 by eos_nyxia

[eos_nyxia]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:14 PM, avatarse said:

I think one problem with this is that academics aren't concerned with communicating to laymen.  Every avenue of academics almost has it's own language and it's basically focused on communicating within their own dept.

That said, I think this is actually pretty neat, for its own sake. In a "diversity of communication" sort of way. In the way that there are also many other foreign languages, or even programming languages, that one can learn. Or that a language like Esperanto exists, intended as a form of universal communication via a grammatically simplified language.... but barely anyone actually uses it, let alone is a native speaker of it. Instead, we use messy, organically developed languages. Often stupidly complicated for seemingly arbitrary reasons, at least from the outside.

It is a thing that exists, potentially for its own sake, or it can be used for >>>>insert various purposes<<<<.

A lot of academic-speak, as disjointed and arcane as it looks, still developed organically enough and for certain means. By its definition and inception, it only has meaning within the context it was created. It's arguable that at a point, some people lost track of what certain things meant, in the sense that they lost a clear sense of objective, as well as a sense of groundedness. (At times, you might wonder if people really understand themselves as well.) Honestly? It's hard to be "in touch" when you become too insulated. I suppose there is always this risk when you become too insulated, whether as an individual or as a small group. You become seriously, seriously out of touch. No one can fucking understand you anymore. You start speaking in your own language, and language is by nature self-referential, one way or another.....

And at this point, you definitely could say that it has become its own sort of "language game" in the most negative, critical sense of that term. Arguably: endlessly circular dealing with the same issues in the same sort of ways. Like a stagnant pool of water cut off from the flow of the river, or water stranded in pools from the ocean after a high tide has receded. In general, this is what the rigidity of institutions, and people doing things in a rigid, overly dogmatic way, both together and by themselves... this is what it tends to do. It gets STALE very quickly.

People outside it cannot truly play it because they have no direct stakes in it, even if they're interested in the issues or questions being discussed. This is like... the nature of politicking, or being engaged in society, for better and for worse.

At times, maybe we should instead be asking if "the means" (or language) is doing what the user intended of it. Not whether it strikes you to be of use to you personally, from where you stand. That is... if you actually care about understanding it. If the person who is using it is not interested in doing what you think should be done with it... I'm afraid you're going to have to convince them otherwise, one way or another.

The answer to that is... appeal to what the user wants. Or could want.

Edited November 13, 2022 by eos_nyxia

[eos_nyxia]

One of the appeals of academia though is that (in my experience) is that you can get through to the people who care. (Just maybe not enough of them to actually stay in academia and to centre a life around it.)

Academia has already been vetted, for the most part, for people who care enough about what they do enough to actually do it, to spend the time and the energy on what they do in a committed way. E.g. research. One is generally not in it for the money. No one starts spending their time doing this, if at the very least, they didn't think there was an important purpose or point to it all.

That is what... academia is supposed to be for.

One of the issues is that outside of academia, it can hard to find this sort of commitment to quality control (in both intention and action) in clear concentrations.

There are just people everywhere who are more committed to their idea of things, and making an identity out of it (perhaps this is unavoidable for the most part), but the supposed ""ego"" part of it, without the actual necessary work to be on par with academia in terms of the quality of "doing work" (as opposed to determining the quality of all of the results or work done).

Big surprise. People do care, but it's usually more casual. People generally have lives and other things to do, understandably. Also: by the structure and set-up of the environment, people have to actually find a way to communicate, generally come to some sort of conclusion/ consolidation of ideas. Leaving people to their own devices, without structure or being led (or "encouraged") in one direction or another, people don't tend to do a great job of this for the most part...

Remember that academia literally arose out of the cloister.....

Edited November 13, 2022 by eos_nyxia