Back in high school, I took an AP English class with a very unconventional teacher who taught me a simple formula for writing convincing work.

This was based on the Greek philosophy, Ethos, Logos and Pathos. Or as Aristotle pointed out, the modes of persuasion.

Most beginning science communicators lack two of these skills and I bet you know what they are.

To say I’m a master of all three doesn’t mean anything, but I think if you want to attract a certain type of reader, then you should follow these steps.

So this article is all about how to improve your skill as a communicator, using ancient greek philosophy.

How to Improve Ethos

Ethos is derived from the word, Ethics but let’s go a bit further. To dig into the etymology, it has to do with one’s reputation than anything else.

In fact, I think this is the most fundamental, important thing to get people to notice your work. It’s very hard to gain a reputation, as it takes time and age to get one.

How did I get the reputation I have today? Does that matter? Unfortunately, it does but the good news is, it’s much easier today to improve your reputation than ever before.

Piggy Back

In Gary Vaynerchuk’s book, “Crushing It”, he explains that the easiest way to gather momentum is to collaborate with people with bigger followings.

I do this trick with My Food Job Rocks as it was gaining momentum. I contacted guests who have a bigger following than me (like Logan Guleff) and the help share it with other people.

This is also what Rachelle Boucher has done with String Nguyen. String is a master linkedin influencer and Rochelle is a sales rep at Miele. Rochelle offered String to do an event in San Francisco in the Miele showroom. This is genius because Rachelle used her assets to help String amplify her presence.

But how do you start? Get comfortable with practice. Collaborate with your closest friends first. Even if its just practice.

Big Wins

People won’t notice you or care about you until you win big and this is tough to do. All I can say is that it takes 50 years to be an overnight success.

As you accumulate credibility, you will eventually randomly get a big win that will help grow your reputation.

A fully sponsored podcast is a big win.

Making millions of dollars on products you create is a big win.

Interviewing a celebrity is a big win.

These big wins accumulate over time until you get a sizeable audience to convince them that you’re legit. In their mind, they think “well if the CFO of Tyson likes this guy, I should too!”.

There is a big reason I don’t like it when young people will invest their time writing non-fiction books. Because a book is a huge investment in time, not many people will pick it up if you’re a nobody. Smart authors have a background of credibility before doing anything.

The scary part is, most successful authors have either accumulated enough big wins to convince people to buy her book, but there is also something to be said if the author gives away content in other areas. Some authors, for example, get on a string of podcasts. This is the main reason why I can get amazing authors on the podcast. Because it coincides with their book launch! Not only that, but I know a lot of authors who publish their whole book on medium or bits and pieces on their blog. In fact, a book should never be a way to gain a reputation, but rather a tool of amplification.

Consistency

Even viral videos die in a month. If people can’t amplify the momentum, then they won’t survive. As mentioned multiple times in multiple articles, being consistent in your message, your work and what you do is key.

The current trend in doing this is being authentic and this is easy and hard at the same time. It’s easy because it’s so easy posting what you really think so you have a lot of content but it’s hard because you’re constantly scared of being judged by the stuff you post. I’m scared every time I post something controversial, or industrially secretive but I’ve noticed that those are either the best articles, or no one reads them anyway.

How to Improve Logos

Logos is the sign of being knowledgeable. A piece with logic sounds smart, and smart people can bear through it. Most scientific papers are logical because their audience is logical.

There are a lot of articles that are smart, and a lot of articles that are dumb. It really depends on the end goal you’re trying to achieve. If your goal is to convey knowledge, sound logical. If it’s for making it entertaining, do a different approach. If it’s for clicks, well, use pathos.

As a science communicator, you obviously want to sound smart and have your articles be valuable yet most science communicators have articles that are either too dry or too egotistical. It’s a hard balance to find the two.

Improve your knowledge

This is a no-brainer. Read more. Listen more. Talk more.

Yet I’m surprised how many people don’t do this. If you want to sound smart, you need to always be learning.

The secret though is to not be so into your own field, but rather, gain knowledge on how to write.

The example I’m going to give you is me learning how to “copywrite”

Though I am by no means an expert, I spend a lot of money learning how to copywrite, which is a skill that teaches you how to “write to sell”. This industry is super technical. One of the best descriptions of “the science of writing” I’ve ever seen and I’ve found it extremely exciting to learn. They do psychological analysis, hyper-target, and A/B testing. These guys don’t kid around!

Because copywriting is so data focused, all scientists should learn how to do it because it teaches you proven ways to improve an audience’s perception of what you’re saying.

To stretch your brain, learn new things and have those new things merge with the other things you’ve learned.

Break It Down

Learning science is hard. You spend all your life buying 1000 page textbooks to learn about 100 pages of it through lecture. Repeat this 8-18 times for every science class you take.

Science communicators are very opinionated on their ability to break down complicated topics and you can use this as a force for good (like Paul Shapiro’s Clean Meat book) or a force for absolute evil (like Food Babe).

Whenever I advise people on writing science articles, I tell them to break it down well enough for a high schooler to be interested in it. Notice that I didn’t say 5 year old or “needs to know it”.

Science should be conveyed to someone who has most of their cognitive abilities active and having the ability to make it interesting ignites a flame to inspire the student to keep on learning. We are now at the age where we don’t have to know everything. We can be interested in something and spend hours on the internet to learn about it.

Your job as someone who writes about science is to always provide an impact on the reader. No matter what.

Talk to experts and share

The easiest form of scientific content is the interview. This resonates in blog posts, articles from media, podcasts, and videos. The interview format benefits both parties. You get to learn a whole bunch of great skills (piggybacking, acquiring knowledge, breaking it down) and the guest benefits because he gets a spike of publicity.

If you’re stuck generating great content, start with interviewing. I highly suggest recording the interview because you can do so many things with the audio file. You can transcribe it, add a video, autotune it, or make it a podcast, whatever.

How to Improve Pathos

My high school English teacher used to quote “pathos” as pathetic yet it is probably the most important muse used to write nowadays. Unfortunately, for the wrong reasons. Pathos focuses on the emotional side of a piece of content. Unfortunately, scientists are terrible at being emotional and marketers are so good, it’s deceptive.

An article that tells you about a person’s journey about weight loss is generally very pathos heavy. Very inspiring, but very little knowledge or even reputation yet it will get hits.

Pathos is necessary to grab a reader’s attention and is as important as good storytelling and copywriting.

In fact, there are a lot of talks saying that data is less of a way to convince the average joe/jane on an opinion. It actually an anecdote or story that appeals to emotion, that will convince someone to join a cause.

As a scientist, that’s really frustrating, but this is the world we live in.

Polarize

I hate this method.

It’s the headlines that bastardize good media, it’s the reason why Food babe is rich and it’s one of the biggest reason why scientists suck at communicating. Polarizing is a very powerful marketing tool that allows you to solidify your stance. For example, Coffee Will Kill You will link to an article saying that a judge in California said that coffee causes cancer and you have to label it that way.

It’s probably one of the most disgusting marketing tools and works with people who have HUGE egos. I find this a pretty terrible issue and it’s only for people who care about growth/money.

In my opinion, you don’t want followers that will “hyper-agree” with you. They’re pretty toxic people. Instead, my suggestion is to shift your mindset to cater to rational people who like science. I think building a small, but strong community is much better than going viral because yoga mats are in your bread.

Storytelling

I am more convinced than ever that it’s actually easier to convince someone through anecdotes than through hard data. At least on topics that are not based on risk versus ruin.

From what I’ve noticed, data is only effective in two scenarios: making money and mitigating risks. It’s not good when it comes to convincing your aunt that gluten is ok to eat.

So therefore, storytelling is only a useful skill when it has the ability to convince people on things that aren’t life or death.

In all my articles, or podcasts, I weave a sort of storytelling aspect to it. I give examples that are tangible, and I get my guests to share their best stories.

Good stories hit the heart and are a lot more memorable to most people than dumb statistics. Especially now, stories have been influential for entertaining and influencing the reader. A good storyteller has the ability to weave their own opinions to a setting where they don’t sound like an asshole.

Customer Focus

If you work in the CPG industry, you probably think the customer you’re feeding is irrational, and they don’t understand anything about nutrition or food science. And this is true, they have no idea. Wouldn’t it be logical if your articles were less about calling them dumb and more about sparking an interest?

“No-no” lists are very popular in the food industry and they make a lot of money due to their polarizing stance on nutrition.

It is unfortunate, but I have not seen the food industries with no-no lists buckle down to food science lobbying.

In fact, most articles that are anti “no-no list” are rather aggressive about calling out the consumer.

Instead of being infuriated when acetic acid is on the “no-no list”, would it be more beneficial to just write about it? As a food scientist, you have an enough of a reputation to talk about it, not only that, but you have the knowledge to talk about it well. You just need to make its customer focus.

More people will google “what is acetic acid?” rather than “why is acetic acid not bad for you”.

Combining it all together

It takes a lot of balance and finesse to infuse your articles with a mix of reputation, knowledge, and emotion.

There are not enough smart, knowledgeable articles in the world. I’m talking about the articles that are written for the sake of science and not for the sake of selling a really bad health product.

Right now, we as scientists have the power to write, but we need to utilize being good enough to write about things to inspire people to care more about science, and not about polarizing the future.