Perhaps it’s a difference in communication experience, and effectiveness? Maybe the person who is already famous has lots of experience with talking to people and conveying information — perhaps they make more efficient use of a small amount of information — whereas the person with a lot of experience on the subject matter, but is poor at communication, is unable to effectively communicate the subject matter. One must be able to retain people’s attention to effectively communicate; this takes skill.
The fields jargon is necessary for the experts to talk effeciently to each other, then it becomes second nature for them.
Then, when they have to talk about their expertise to the public, nothing is retained, actionable or even understood, because there is simply not a common vocabulary backed by the same experiences.
At best you get a confused public, at worst they react with apprehension.
Youd need seasoned science communicators, capable to bridge the “culture” of the public and the one of the experts, which is hard.
Plus, the skills to become an expert are often very different to the ones that a science communicator needs, like summarising in an engrossing way, glossing over the right amount of boring details, empathy and patience for an unresponsive audience…
Perhaps it’s a difference in communication experience, and effectiveness? Maybe the person who is already famous has lots of experience with talking to people and conveying information — perhaps they make more efficient use of a small amount of information — whereas the person with a lot of experience on the subject matter, but is poor at communication, is unable to effectively communicate the subject matter. One must be able to retain people’s attention to effectively communicate; this takes skill.
It definitely is imo.
The fields jargon is necessary for the experts to talk effeciently to each other, then it becomes second nature for them.
Then, when they have to talk about their expertise to the public, nothing is retained, actionable or even understood, because there is simply not a common vocabulary backed by the same experiences.
At best you get a confused public, at worst they react with apprehension.
Youd need seasoned science communicators, capable to bridge the “culture” of the public and the one of the experts, which is hard.
Plus, the skills to become an expert are often very different to the ones that a science communicator needs, like summarising in an engrossing way, glossing over the right amount of boring details, empathy and patience for an unresponsive audience…
I also think the audience plays a roll. If they are eating it up, they will keep spewing it.