Drawing comic. Sort of.

thebrainscoop:

franzanthony:

thebrainscoop:

The Evolution of Human Birth

Thanks to the fossil record (really, fossil record… I love you), we know a decent amount of information about early hominids- including the size and shape of their pelvises, which give us hints into the evolution of human birthing practices. Giving birth to a human baby is remarkably difficult; our heads our big, our shoulders are wide, and that pelvic opening has only decreased in size as we’ve been walking upright for millions of years. It turns out, women may have been requiring personal assistance giving birth for as long as two million years, making midwifery one of the oldest professions in the world. 

So given these difficulties, what does it mean for future mothers when access to quality healthcare, nutrition, education and contraceptives is limited? We went to talk to Dr. Robert Martin, a biological anthropologist, about where we’re heading as a global society. 

shocking spoiler alert: when women can control the number of children they have and their children are healthier and they can get educations EVERYBODY WINS. 

Discussion topic: how effective is it to communicate a big idea like this that is built upon the understanding of evolution, when a portion of the society still misunderstands / flat out rejects evolution in the first place?

What are the chances that they will accept the reasoning behind day-to-day activities and policies when the root of it all, evolution, contradicts their core values?

As communicators, should we explain how evolution works every single time to make things understandable? Or just roll with it, educate the open minded ones, and overwhelm the (hopeless?) deniers with sheer number?

Which audience should we talk to? How do we deliver the message?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot and would love to get some clue so I know what to do.

Franz brings up a lot of good points, and here’s my take: 

We know from recent studies that effective science communication efforts are those that appeal to emotions of the audience. Furthermore, it can actually be counterproductive for scientists/science communicators to over-explain their research in some instances- that it reenforces biases or preconceived notions when someone tries to use more facts, data and anecdotes to substantiate their position. Slate published two good articles about this recently with links to those studies: “It’s time to give up on facts,” and “Scientists, stop thinking explaining science will fix things.” 

I’m personally against the idea that we need to explain and reiterate the basics of evolution, climate change etc. in every attempt to talk about a bigger picture topic. That takes time away from actually getting to talking about those bigger issues, and takes away from creating a stronger framework for the audience. The Brain Scoop has been able to build up on concepts over time - especially those concerning evolution, taxonomy, speciation and biodiversity - because we’ve made those stepping stones with our videos over a period of years. I hope our audience has been able to grow with us in that way. 

Honestly, this reminds me of the instances in which I have to defend the value and import of our ‘Women in Science’ groups, and for representation/advocacy of women/POC in science. If I had to restart every conversation with someone who questioned the importance of women in science, I’d never have time to actually talk about the contributions those people have made to these fields. I’d be arguing against centuries of misconceptions, biases and sexist assumptions. Sometimes that is necessary - but more often than not, it gets in the way of what is a more powerful message or story, and it takes away from the energy we should be spending, instead, on supporting those initiatives. 

Obviously I’m talking broadly and in re: to our approach to videos, especially when the discussions are happening online. Interpersonal conversations and public outreach is different; I’m more willing to spend time/energy explaining these issues “from the beginning” because I do believe it’s possible to have more of an impact/influence when the conversation is in person, in real time.

There is power in iterating what is an accepted scientific truth, and not apologizing for doing so. 

But, what do you think?