4 ms·

Ah, apologies. Got it. Thank you! Yes, I agree with you there about some science journalism, and in particular the tabloid variety. When you read quality writi

Ah, apologies. Got it. Thank you! Yes, I agree with you there about some science journalism, and in particular the tabloid variety. When you read quality writing like you'd find at Nature, Aeon/Psyche etc, which values the ideas for themselves rather than for what outrageously speculative headline can be squeezed out of them for "the man on the street", you can see a huge difference in the way it's being communicated. And you're right - it's not as successful, because the good stuff isn't negative-emotionally triggering (unless the worst kinds of tabloids get their hands on it). Negativity bias deranks science stories that are all about careful, quiet optimism and cautious hopefulness. That's a huge, huge problem - especially as our curiosity seems to grow out of positive rather than negative emotional responses to information. (Anhedonia, strongly correlated with depression, is the inability to feel pleasure, and it includes the inability to take pleasure in learning something new - ie. it kills your curiosity). Anyway, I'm rambling. Thank you for this thoughtful clarification!

wolverine876 5y ago
> When you read quality writing like you'd find at Nature, Aeon/Psyche etc, which values the ideas for themselves rather than for what outrageously speculative headline can be squeezed out of them for "the man on the street", you can see a huge difference in the way it's being communicated. And you're right - it's not as successful, because the good stuff isn't negative-emotionally triggering (unless the worst kinds of tabloids get their hands on it). To be clear, to anyone reading, I guess that the approach used in Nature, which values ideas for themselves, would be more successful with the general public; it's just not used.
- sdoering 5y ago
  > guess that the approach used in Nature, which values ideas for themselves, would be more successful with the general public; it's just not used. I sadly have to disagree. As much as I'd rather not. After university I worked as a junior editor for an online site with > 10 million uniques per month. Shortly after joining I was handed over the "science" section (double, triple, quadruple the quotes). I tried to make it more about current scientific ideas, the big findings of the past and less about 'Hitler living on the dark side of the moon', 'Aliens visiting earth', 'This dietary idea will make you loose weight fast' and all the other bullshit one reads in tabloid. No clicks. Advertising revenue down the drain. The audience had no interest in scientific ideas and great findings. They wanted entertainment. Maybe I just wasn't able to deliver modern scientific research with enough entertainment value. At least not compared to described topics above. I know. This is just anecdata from a random guy on the internet. YMMV.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > This is just anecdata from a random guy on the internet. You actually have some experience. Thank you.

wolverine876 5y ago

> When you read quality writing like you'd find at Nature, Aeon/Psyche etc, which values the ideas for themselves rather than for what outrageously speculative headline can be squeezed out of them for "the man on the street", you can see a huge difference in the way it's being communicated. And you're right - it's not as successful, because the good stuff isn't negative-emotionally triggering (unless the worst kinds of tabloids get their hands on it). To be clear, to anyone reading, I guess that the approach used in Nature, which values ideas for themselves, would be more successful with the general public; it's just not used.

sdoering 5y ago
> guess that the approach used in Nature, which values ideas for themselves, would be more successful with the general public; it's just not used. I sadly have to disagree. As much as I'd rather not. After university I worked as a junior editor for an online site with > 10 million uniques per month. Shortly after joining I was handed over the "science" section (double, triple, quadruple the quotes). I tried to make it more about current scientific ideas, the big findings of the past and less about 'Hitler living on the dark side of the moon', 'Aliens visiting earth', 'This dietary idea will make you loose weight fast' and all the other bullshit one reads in tabloid. No clicks. Advertising revenue down the drain. The audience had no interest in scientific ideas and great findings. They wanted entertainment. Maybe I just wasn't able to deliver modern scientific research with enough entertainment value. At least not compared to described topics above. I know. This is just anecdata from a random guy on the internet. YMMV.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > This is just anecdata from a random guy on the internet. You actually have some experience. Thank you.