Read on Twitter
For this #SciCommSunday, I'll be talking about the role of 
emotion in #SciComm.On Friday, #CSPC2020 had a #SciComm stream and an underlying theme of emotion came up. There were some mixed thoughts on the role of emotion among the speakers.
Here are my thoughts:
From the research I've personally done on misinformation and virality on social media, content that elicits a strong emotional response drives people to share, specifically negative emotions. Fake news spreads 6x faster than the truth.
This has led to many in the #science community to believe that using emotion in #SciComm as a bad thing, and most of the time, I get a lot of push back about using emotion.
There's a flawed assumption that:
no emotion = good science/scicomm
has emotion = pseudoscience
There's a flawed assumption that:
no emotion = good science/scicomm has emotion = pseudoscience
The use of emotion is how we get our audience to care. I know for many, it's harder to remember and see the positive examples of #SciComm that sparks an emotional response. I'll share a couple of my own personal favourite examples.
"True Facts" by @zefrank teaches the audience something about an animal while giving you a good laugh.
@nothingbutnets is a non-profit against malaria that all started with a Sports Illustrated column by @ReillyRick calling the readers to action to make a difference.
@whereisscience's Freestyle Social is a game where players pick a side on a topic w/ the premise of being open to changing your mind!
Now, think about when you first fell in love with science? What about it sparked you curiosity? Was it a moment, a person, an activity?
We are emotional creatures. We connect through our emotions. The use of emotion is necessary and powerful in #SciComm. As communicators, it's our job to ensure that it is done well with good intent.
