Here's my issue.

The headline says "we're all science communicators" but if that were true, who would be communicating with?

The "we" is the cognoscenti, persuading the great unwashed that we're right.

It's condescending.

https://cen.acs.org/content/cen/articles/98/i43/re-science-communicators-s-better.html via @cenmag

This piece, like so many others, is about persuading people, but going into a conversation assuming that's what should be happening is inherently unpersuasive -- because it's condescending.

Yes! There are some issues where we have would I would call certainty ...

Vaccines work.
The earth is round.
Humans are a product of evolution.

But certainty has a bad case of mission creep, and "we" go into conversations that aren't about those things with the idea that, if you use stories and are empathetic the scales will drop from their eyes ...

I want better science communication. To have it, my #1 priority is figuring out what *I* am wrong about.

Every conversation I have is an opportunity to do that.

I try to focus less on being persuasive and more on being persuadable. It works on good days.

Thanks for listening.