The (im)possible task of science education

Science education is precarious.

Changing a pre-existing opinion is, scientifically speaking, freaking hard. This is true for virtually any topic. Heck, even “brainwashing” effects only worked on “trivial” beliefs (per Suedfeld). Even a cult can’t change your mind. What hope do scientists have?

You might think we’re talking about vaccine safety (overwhelmingly safe, increase longevity, increasingly negative public opinion), or climate change (definitely happening, reversible, increasingly negative public opinion), or even ABA (effective, beneficial, increasingly negative public opinion). 

But back in 2024 we witnessed something alarming. Something that shook our faith in humanity. We still think about it, a year later.

The online comments section of an article about garbage disposals.

...

Maybe you see where this is going.

A lot of people are scared of the garbage disposal. They have been told, probably by an uncle, “NEVER put ANYTHING down the drain!”

InSinkErator president Joe Dillon would like to pulverize such notions. His brand’s motto is “Grind Fearless,” and it tests its appliances using frozen steer rib bones. The dense and fibrous nature of corn husks and soybean pods might trouble a disposal, Dillon allowed, but other than that, just about anything goes. 

“It’s very strong,” he said. “It can grind up really all types of food waste.”

The president of the company that makes them says you can put almost any kind of food waste in them. The InSinkErator website also has a list, inexplicably buried, of things you can put in the disposal, including bones, meat, eggs, and citrus peels. Welp, that settles it!

...

But wait – a random plumber interviewed in the article has this to say:

Marshall sees garbage disposals as tools that don’t serve a true need. As far as he is concerned, nothing should go down them.

“I don’t see there’s a net positive effect,” he said.

Does this plumber have any particular qualifications? If he does, the article doesn’t mention it. Being a plumber is a great skill. But he’s just, like…one plumber. This is foreshadowing.

There are 167 comments on the article.

...

Based on the content of the comments, nary a mind was changed by the article itself. Most commenters simply share their own personal feelings or experiences. Do the comments change minds? It doesn’t seem that way.

In what appears to be the very first comment:

John-Robert La Porta, he of two first names and two last names, references the article, but ignores the manufacturer – he’s referring to the personal experience of random people quoted in the article. At least he references the article; most comments just share what the commenters do.

Elizabeth and Bryan in back-to-back comments are pretty sure you can’t put corn cobs, grease, bones, veg skins, banana peels, dry cat food, or possibly anything (?) down the drain.

William doesn’t want garbage disposals because they clog up sewers – the place where your poop goes. But don’t misunderstand, he is willing to kill wild animals.

Weller edited this comment, perhaps to refine the punchline. Also, “Weller Davis, landlord” might have been the villain in The Karate Kid (if I remember correctly).

Harry doesn’t know what should go in – despite, presumably, reading the article – but he does know what shouldn’t (despite not being mentioned in the article?). At least he reinforces his point with a tone poem.

Katherine and Beth just have nobody else to talk to.

...

The Wall Street Journal, despite recent changes, has a readership that is more educated, knowledgeable about current events, and wealthy than average (though that data is from 2012). Some of these qualities we would associate with being…smarter? Is it “smarter” to be able to change your mind based on evidence?

Maybe, but let’s be honest: maybe not. We’re talking about something else altogether, which could be characterised as flexibility. Beyond that, it’s simply true that most people are more convinced by stories or anecdotes than data, and people who are best at communicating are typically telling stories.

Our topic today was a story, and it didn’t change minds. We have a few answers.

...

Shumway & Eversole (Eversole of the BDS modules) wrote a brief paper discussing how they teach people to communicate about climate change.

The barriers apply to resistance to acceptance of climate change. But more importantly they seem to apply to resistance to acceptance of garbage disposals. 

Shumway & Eversole note that they also teach about framing and storytelling, as both can be surprisingly effective at changing attitudes. 

These are 15 great tools. But what if it’s not enough – what if we need something stronger?

...

Motivational interviewing is a strategy developed by Rollnick & Miller in the late 1980s. The simplified version might go like this: some people don’t want to change, but everyone can change, and a good therapist can lead a client into a mindset where they want to change. The way this is done is by presenting information nonjudgmentally, asking specific kinds of questions, carefully listening, and differentially reinforcing “change talk.”

Motivational interviewing did not come from behavior analysis, though it is not inconsistent with a behavior analytic framework. Here is a good example of how it looks (and an incredibly helpful bad example).

A powerful demonstration of MI: in college students –not exactly known for their sobriety – a 65-70 minute interview reduced problem drinking for up to 12 months. In a different study, delivering a brief motivational interview while subjects were drunk in the emergency room reduced problem drinking for up to 12 months.

...

There were 167 comments on the article. Not all were anti-garbage disposal, and some commenters made multiple comments. We aren’t going to count them, but for the sake of math we’ll say there were 120 unique anti-garbage disposal commenters.

A brief motivational interview is about 1 hour. 120 one-hour interviews – that’s about 3 weeks of full-time work.

We know what we have to do.