One of the most discouraging moments in my training was when I was looking into the literature around Decision Support Systems, in the context of Geographic Information Systems as a tool for supporting complex efforts.
Over and over, no matter the specific focus of a study, the authors would reiterate that no matter the quality of the information produced by the decision support system, decision makers were more likely to go with solutions supported by people the decision makers considered to be peers, even when the hard data showed that the opposite course was more justified.
In short, CEOs and similar almost always care more about the opinions of other CEOs than being true to the scientific ideal.
So to go back to the name of our species, ‘homo sapiens’ as a name is aspirational, not reflective of fact.
Perhaps ‘homo recumbens’ would be more appropriate as a descriptor, but I prefer we keep the current name so as to at least give us something to strive for.
LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
People of science understand, without the parables, because they have the working and “book” knowledge to interpret the relative meaning of the presented data. To communicate the meaning relative data, without the background knowledge, and without taking the time to learn (or even package for small, focused learning) it is easier to understand, if put into a relative comparable, with similar, relative distance, or changes. Especially when people are already overloaded with *gestures towards everything. The way to eat an elephant, small bites. It’s an elephant to people without all that back knowledge or ability to interpret the science, so you gotta break it into small bites for them, using your understanding.