Readers of this blog already know that I think that when scientists try to communicate with the public we spend too much time trying to communicate the facts and not enough time telling people why they matter.1 We aren't willing to accept that facts and feelings matter when people make up their mind.
A couple of days ago Climate Progress posted part I of an occasional series, "Why scientists aren't more persuasive." As befits the focus of that blog, the examples are drawn from climate science, but the advice is general and simple. The three elements critical to communicating effectively with the public are:
A couple of days ago Climate Progress posted part I of an occasional series, "Why scientists aren't more persuasive." As befits the focus of that blog, the examples are drawn from climate science, but the advice is general and simple. The three elements critical to communicating effectively with the public are:
- Simple language
- Repetition, repetition, repetition
- Metaphor and irony
Logic might be described as the art of influencing minds with the facts, whereas rhetoric is the art of influencing both the hearts and minds of listeners with the figures of speech. The figures are the catalog of the different, effective ways that we talk-they include alliteration and other forms of repetition, metaphor, irony, and the like. The goal is to sound believable. As Aristotle wrote in Rhetoric, "aptness of language is one thing that makes people believe in the truth of your story."
1If you care to read an extended post on the topic, take a look back at this one where I discussed the crisis in science literacy.
2And if you're wondering why there's a "Framing" tag associated with this post, substitute "framing" for "rhetoric" or "figures" in the Climate Progress post and the relationship should become clear. As for why there's a "Sizzle" tag, think of the 9th ward as a trope, and I think you'll get my drift.
Leave a comment