[ WHY ] Are we talking past each other?

Some of my esteemed engineering friends criticise me when they hear me speaking in words, and don't hear any numbers or technical formulae, as 'making a political speech.'

Meanwhile, in recent weeks, a number of friends and colleagues (several engineers, as it happens) have emphasised to me the importance of concise, clear communication.

There is no question: such communication is an art in itself.

After the recent debate at Macquarie University in Sydney "That Nuclear Energy Can Power Australia's Clean Future" hosted by Rob Stokes , with Stefan Trueck , Tim Buckley and The Hon. Matt Kean for the negative versus Professor Tina Soliman Hunter , Jasmin Diab CSC GAICD and me for the affirmative a friend made an observation/ proferred some advice, which can be paraphrased as:

<What you said is true, and has depth, and you and I know it's true, but the other guys have very simple one-liners that are superficial, wrong or misleading, but appealing.>

That's not the first time someone has said something similar to me. [Hey: I'm working on it!]

There is a dichotomy in the debate and discussion in Australia on energy and climate policy, which I think can be characterised as 'engineers & activists' talking past each other. Most engineers prefer numbers and tend to be 'allergic' to words. It is generally the other way around with activists. This is a general observation: there are of course exceptions.

(The typical year-12 marks in my first year engineering class at Melbourne University back in the day were straight A's or close to it for Maths A, Maths B, Physics and Chemistry, and a basic Pass for English. When one of the senior lecturers put up an overhead transparency with a column graph showing us the data for our class, the whole lecture theatre burst out laughing. His point was: HEY! written and verbal communication is important).

There is much riding on this debate. The simple 2 x 2 matrix above provides a frame within which the dynamic of the debate can be viewed.

As is widely known, most (but not all) journalists prefer words to numbers, which is likely why most went into journalism in the first place. Most people in activist organisations do not have maths / science / engineering backgrounds (LinkedIn provides good insight). The same is true of many of the senior people in agencies with energy responsibility, and in our various parliaments, where members and senators tend to be trained in the law and other non-numbers-based fields, disciplines and professions.

Along come the engineers, thinking:

'If we can just run these folk through a crash course in high school maths, physics, and chemistry, topped off with a quick introduction to electrical and mechanical engineering, they will see the light.'

That approach tries to move the "activists" from the lower left quadrant to the lower right quadrant in which (engineers hope) reality dawns. Then, as if by magic, the activists will join the engineers in the upper right quadrant and all disagreements will be resolved.

Meanwhile, a few people are trying to educate the engineers in the art of clear, concise communication, of course also consistent with the numbers. That approach tries to move the engineers leftward from the upper right quadrant to the upper left quadrant. Then (the hope is), as if by magic, the activists will join the engineers in the upper left quadrant, having been persuaded by their wonderful words (and trusting those words are backed up by sound numbers, as impenetrable as those numbers may be to the uninitiated).

There is some distance to go in the energy debate, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Is there a words-and-numbers resolution in the centre, hopefully above the line that distinguishes what is true from what is appealing but sadly mistaken?