deletions | additions
diff --git a/What_s_the_science_behind__.html b/What_s_the_science_behind__.html
index 581c43a..e48722c 100644
--- a/What_s_the_science_behind__.html
+++ b/What_s_the_science_behind__.html
...
What's the science behind why people love infographics?
There's overwhelming evidence that infographics are extremely effective at catching people's attention, and that that sticking ability isn't going away. In fact, 3M conducted a study that found visuals are processed in the brain over 60,000 times faster than text.
The brain craves infographics because we suffer from information overload: the average attention span has dropped to
8 seconds since 1980 and people only read
28% of what they see. Our eyes are neurally networked to take in a visual scene in under 1 second while it takes 250 seconds to recognize, then assign meaning to symbols (think of each word in a sentence as a symbol). This explains why 80% of people are more willing to read an infographic--and they learn and retain information 32% better as a result too.
Why does this matter to scientists?
First, let me lay some cold, hard facts:
1. More should scientists are applying every year for grant funding, which is declining every year.
2. More PhDs are graduating ever year yet more and more postdocs aren't getting tenure (6% in Europe).
Now, let me ask: Why are 52 out of the 36 million people on Academia and 9 million on ResearchGate Nobel Laureates?
It's care?
It's becomequite clear that writing that writing papers and getting grants won't cut it in academia anymore. Many tenure-track professors, especially in more basic (rather than applied) science areas, those non-applied sciences, argue that layperson outreach and science communication are superfluous extensions of "cold, hard science" (see (see href="https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/1hq9o2/are_scientific_researchers_too_uptight_to_give/">Reddit thread). To such skeptics, let me point out a correlation, and to that, attach a hypothesis:
class="ltx_title_subsection">Correlation: Funding class="ltx_title_subsection">Correlation: Funding for science is dropping along with public perception of scientists.
Hypothesis: The scientists.
Hypothesis: The above is not merely correlation; rather, causation.
Here's the cycle causation.
The the cycle of science: Policymakers science explains why climate change researchers recently saw a cut in their funding, with low layperson education on climate change:
Policymakers create grants for science -> Scientists ->
Scientists conduct and publish research using grants -> This ->
This research molds public opinion on science -> Public ->
Public opinion influences policy makers. This explains why climate change researchers recently saw a cut in their funding, with low layperson education on climate change. Many makers.
What can scientists have realized this trend: the burst in scientists using social media and academic networks to build a personal, scientific brand is a testament to it.
Infographics are a great way to attract a larger audience, both laypeople and scientists alike. While the public outreach is more important to scientists in fields like environmental science and public health, the benefits for other career-track scientists are undeniable: people who have created infographics with PubDraw have seen over an average of 1.6 more citations and 10X more social engagement.
engagement.
First, let me lay some cold, hard facts:
1. More scientists are applying every year for grant funding, which is declining every year.
2. More PhDs are graduating ever year yet more and more postdocs aren't getting tenure (6% in Europe).
Now, let me ask: Why are 52 out of the 36 million people on Academia and 9 million on ResearchGate Nobel Laureates?
