• Interview.Andrea Compton: "We are living the geek revolution that I have been waiting for since I was 10 years old"

  • Interview.RoEnLaRed: "On YouTube they have asked me how often I masturbate to whether a type of vulva is normal"

  • Interview.Miguel Gane: "One of my biggest fears is that in 20 years no one will remember me and I'm just a kid who published poems on the networks"

Journalist and publicist,

Rocío Vidal

(1992) has been disseminating science for three years on her

YouTube

channel

, where she is known as

Schrödinger's La Gata

.

It has half a million followers, although many did not know of its existence until last summer the images were viralized where a group of Covid-19 deniers rebuked her during a protest.

Now, the Castellón publishes

Eureka!

(Ediciones B), a book that seeks to value scientific history and the evolution of knowledge.

QUESTION.

In the midst of the coronavirus crisis, you publish a book on the evolution of science, why this approach and not another?

ANSWER.

I think

Eureka!

It comes at a very opportune moment since we have to understand where we come from to be here.

We talk a lot about vaccines, hand washing ... but where does it come from?

How much did it take to fight for all these discoveries to be there now?

It is a kind of tribute to what scientific work is, to the evolution of knowledge.

Scientists' sweat and tears are also valued.

In the end, they are people like you and me who want to have life, their decent working conditions, resources in their research ... The figure of the scientist as that mad genius has been romanticized a lot, but they really are people who have spent years and years researching they have to be valued.

Q. What leads you to open a YouTube channel to disseminate science?

R.

Well, when studying the Master of Scientific Communication I say, now what?

Because of course, journalism plus science: impossible work.

I thought: I'm going to set up a project even if it's for the future that some company or specialized media hires me.

But I changed my plans because it went quite well for me and I decided that it was not a means but an end in itself.

Q. Have you ever believed in something and later realized that it had no scientific basis?

R.

Man, that curiosity so great when it manifests itself in adolescence sometimes leads you to dark paths.

And that happened to me, who believed in all this about the Law of Attraction and that if I tell the universe something it will respond to me.

I even had a panel in my house where I focused on everything I wanted: having 10 cats, a gorgeous girlfriend or boyfriend, and all that.

And, of course, then you realize and say: Rocío, one thing is that you like delving into new ideas and another is that you have an open brain so that you drop it.

So I started channeling.

I still have that curiosity about different things but from a slightly more skeptical perspective.

P. YouTube, Twitch, social networks ... Are they serving to make us more informed or more uninformed?

R.

This is very difficult to know because I think it is a double-edged sword.

What happened before?

That we received the information from four specific channels and that was going to mass, so to speak.

We did not have the critical capacity to counteract what we were told and we were more of a society of ideas as they were sold to us.

Now we have much more power.

But of course, with great power comes great responsibility and is often very complicated.

They continue to try to sell us the motorcycle, we continue to receive very conflicting information and, above all, with a very heated political environment.

This serves for polarization.

Above the social networks it suits them, which is the worst.

Studies have shown that both Facebook and Twitter feed people ideas that already work for them.

Why?

Because if you are receiving information that you like and that confirms your beliefs, you say: I am still here on this social network.

What do they want?

Economy of attention.

That you spend more time on their social network, that you consume more, and thus earn more money.

If we really want open and equitable social networks, it cannot be like that.

Q. In this last year of the pandemic, have you noticed that science is taken more seriously?

A.

Yes. I think there are two very curious parallel phenomena.

One - which is the majority luckily - is that science has begun to value or, at least, to see that it is so important for our day to day life.

Something that I hope will not remain in borage water and will begin to be valued with resources and investment in R + D + I.

But, on the other hand, this situation of uncertainty and the need for answers has also fostered an alternative way for some people to say: oh no, but science deceives us, the system is rotten, everything is a lie and really This is a government conspiracy to inoculate us with a microchip.

There are these two parallel currents that I am not going to equate because, luckily, one is the majority: common sense.

Q. In the summer you had problems during a demonstration of coronavirus deniers, how did you experience it?

R. They

have put me the images many times afterwards and I already take it with humor because the situation is surreal, but I lived it very violently from within.

In other words, I was surrounded by many people who rebuked me from all sides and I did not know to what extent I was going to escape unscathed.

They are people who are very angry and aggressive.

Verbally aggressive and can also get into the hands.

It makes me uneasy that we have reached that point and that there are people who have that feeling that I am an accomplice and that I deserve to be insulted and cornered among dozens of people.

I am a journalist who was only reporting.

Q. It is not the first dispute you have to defend your ideas [the last one was about the arrest of Pablo Hasel], have you ever regretted after having done it?

A.

I continually regret things I say or do.

In fact, I have had a time when I have hardly gotten into sauces or eggplants for my mental health, because if you are in a delicate personal moment in the end these things affect you.

But lately I have been more warrior and yes that many times I have thought: but, Rocío, what need do you have to get into this mess that does not even go to the scientific theme.

It is also true that of 100% of the tweets that I start writing I will publish 50%.

Imagine the autofilter I wear.

XXXXX

Q. After several years fighting myths and lies, which one can you say is the most widespread?

R.

We all believe in some hoax.

We all have some ingrained belief that is not real.

Let's see, if you ask me what the most widespread irrational belief is obviously God and religion.

That everyone can believe what they want, but it is an irrational and own belief that has been put as a universal truth.

If we go to pseudoscientific trends, conspiracies ... There are many very famous such as that UFOs have visited us or that we have not gone to the Moon.

As for health-related pseudosciences, we have homeopathy, for example, which is sold in pharmacies.

How is it possible that something that does not have any scientific evidence can be sold in pharmacies next to a real drug ?!

It is something that is not yet understood.

Q. Are religion and science compatible?

A.

They are compatible in the sense that each one goes their own way and does not collide with each other.

It is that science is based on cumulative knowledge;

religion are dogmas.

Religion in the past filled many gaps that we did not know about.

We looked at the stars, we did not know what was happening, and we saw God.

We have seen God in many things and each time we see him in less because science, and the advancement of society, has filled those gaps.

Now God remains in a more private terrain but he no longer gives so many answers beyond the fear of death or the need that we all have to find answers to the afterlife.

P. Does science interest young people?

R.

The fact that science does not interest young people is a song that they have told us that it is completely a lie.

Science was not communicating well.

We had forgotten that young people have other communication needs and other ways of consuming content.

You're not going to get their attention with, sorry, a four-page newspaper article or a regular TV show.

What happened?

That new social networks and new ways of communicating have brought together millions of young people who are very interested in science.

Is that there are science channels on YouTube with more than two million followers.

Q. Is Spain lacking in scientific culture and critical thinking?

R.

When we are taught science we are taught very little to think of it as something of our day to day.

We learn formulas, a lot of theorems ... It's great because you have to have that culture and that knowledge, but you also have to see science as part of our day.

Furthermore, with this maelstrom of social networks and this world of overinformation, we need to know how to discern what is true from what is mere opinion;

or what has evidence and what does not.

And I do not know if we are realizing that a generation of kids is coming who are consuming social networks and many of them do not know how to know if something is true or not, or how to contrast sources.

Q. What are you most concerned about right now?

R.

I am concerned about polarization in all areas.

I see a bigger gap every time at the political level, at the social level and at the scientific level.

And, of course, that is promoted a lot on social networks.

When you try to bring positions closer together, because let's not forget that here everyone has their own ideas, it makes no sense to point out and ridicule the opposite even if they have ideas that you think are ridiculous.

I am a person who bets a lot to listen, debate, dialogue, and I see that every time that is seen worse.

In social networks, if you go to talk to someone who thinks something different, it is like: you are whitewashing, this is horrible, why you whitewashing, why you debate with the opponent who is the enemy ... To think so much that we are in a war It is scary because I believe that everyone has their ideas and their pre-established beliefs and if we do not dialogue we will not meet at any point.

Q. Do you see a solution or are we at a point of no return?

R.

I see it very complicated because it is getting worse and worse and who should calm the waters feeds them more because it suits them.

If opinion leaders and social networks do nothing because it suits them, how is there going to be a solution?

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • science

  • culture

  • Idols

  • Youtube

IdolsRoEnLaRed: "There is an incredible lack of talking about sex without taboos; on YouTube they have asked me how often I masturbate to if a type of vulva is normal"

Idols Andrea Compton: "We are living the geek revolution that I have been waiting for since I was 10 years old"

ÍdolosYer: "I am LGTBI and I am proud, but I don't want it to be the reason why I am listened to"

See links of interest

  • Holidays 2021

  • Zenit Saint Petersburg - Real Madrid

  • West Bromwich Albion - Everton

  • Maccabi Fox Tel Aviv - Valencia Basket

  • Parma - Internazionale

  • Levante - Athletic, live