Facts objectify discussions? We think that facts are first and foremost about sovereignty of interpretation. A vivid example for this is risk communication. In a certain situation, the risk evaluation may be raised by 50 or even 100 percent. To illustrate this, Gerd Gigerenzer, a psychology professor who does research on risk, describes the following: When the third generation of contraceptive pills was introduced in the UK, a health alert was published, which warned that twice as many women who took the new pill had developed a life-threatening thromboembolism. The risk had increased by 100 percent. However, if we look at the absolute numbers, we see a different picture. Of 7,000 women taking the second generation pill, only one developed a thromboembolism. The next year two women of 7.000 taking the third generation pill developed a thromboembolism. Thus the risk was twice as high, but the percentage of affected women in the total population was still just 0,03. This is a typical example of deception through omission.
PIVOT has learned that facts are tools which can be used to differentiate but can just as well be misused to misinform. Successful strategic communication begins with the ability to clearly see the difference between these two. Our task in Regulatory Communications is to translate our clients’ expertise into a sound narrative. We are experienced in collaborating with experts in the communication departments of companies as well as with journalists and political opinion leaders.
If you are interested in a career as a Consultant in Regulatory Communications, you should enjoy describing complex content clearly and comprehensibly. You should also enjoy both reading and writing. You are persistent in discussions, but you do not force your partner into giving in by being stubborn. People come back to you not in spite of the fact that you are of a different opinion, but because you are always of a different opinion.