Making a Science Story Sticky

A sticky idea is an idea that is more likely to make a difference. —CHIP HEATH AND DAN HEATH

The greatest method to judge a story's success is to ask yourself "How long do you remember it?" When you finish reading stories, it's gone. Perfect for flights. Others may last a lifetime and be passed down to your offspring. Some are so strong they have survived since the birth of civilization.

Despite the Iliad and Odyssey's scientific superiority, Darwin ranks alongside Dickens and Dumas. Good articles can be read and quoted for decades. One of the best compliments I ever heard was that a colleague authored papers with “legs”—they remained fascinating and relevant over time.

How do we write articles that have an instant impact but also be cited for years? “What makes an idea ‘sticky'?” ask Chip and Dan Heath in their book Made to Stick1. Why do some ideas endure?

whereas others are quickly forgotten? Heath & Heath define six aspects of a sticky notion and group them as follows: SUCCESS.?

S: Simple

U: Unexpected?

C: Concrete

C: Credible

E: Emotional?

S: Stories

1. ?SIMPLE

Simple ideas tend to stick. A simple thought captures the essence of a complex idea in a concise manner. Ideas are powerful.

Distinguish between basic communications that capture the heart of an issue and those that are simply “simplistic.” Simple messages dumb down, trivialize or avoid the underlying topic. For example, while “you pay too much in taxes” sounds catchy and appealing, it misses the underlying questions of what services those taxes fund, whether you want or need them, and whether they are worth your money.

Simple ideas drive much science. The simpler an idea's core, the broader its reach. Darwin's idea of evolution via natural selection drives biology. Fit creatures survive and pass on their genes while unfit organisms do not. This simple concept has enormous power to explain nature and immense promise for investigation.

Simple concepts often drive other fields. Plate tectonics, for example, explains the structure of the global landmasses, the rise and fall of mountain ranges, and the long-term geochemistry of our planet. Atomic orbital theory and hybrid orbitals describe the structure and reactivity of organic compounds. The genetic code and DNA double helix drive molecular biology.

A huge structure on which more intricate dynamics build is provided by these simple notions. “I have to simplify things so I can grasp them,” A simple notion solves a complex problem. Seeing the complex in the complex is not a skill. Great scientists can see the basics in the complex, while competent scientists can't.

A simple message can be expressed in various ways. Most of us would prefer a verbal description. I've always felt like I don't comprehend something until I can illustrate it. Simplicity is the key.

2. UNEXPECTED

Why is it vital to be unexpected in a story? Any article that simply gives more facts that we already know presents a tiny variant on an existing method, or simply confirms dogma will be forgotten. Even solid papers are forgettable because they fill in gaps and provide extra information that solidifies a framework for new ideas. While incremental science is vital, great publications say something new and unexpected.

The questions you raise and the interpretations you make are novel and unexpected. In every field of research, there are fresh questions to be asked (physicists have occasionally thought so but learned better). Few data sets don't allow for new insights. Conversely, few data sets are so unique that they can't be used to tell a dull and uninteresting storyline. Your job is to find the unique and unexpected. Ask fresh questions and seek new answers. Clear up your writing. Your work should identify the unknown within the vast pile of knowledge about your issue. By emphasizing the unknown, you surprise the reader and pique their interest.

It's good science to identify new facets of old issues, bits that, if completed, will advance the greater questions. Our knowledge gaps may be modest, but they are vital. Science advances in incremental steps, not big leaps.

We have a hard time highlighting the uncertainty. We, scientists, prefer to brag about our knowledge. It's crucial to show off your knowledge, especially for new authors who aren't sure how much they know. But knowledge doesn't inspire curiosity. Rather, Heath and Heath said, “We tend to tell folks the facts.” They must first recognize their need.” A good story fills a knowledge gap.

To frame a knowledge gap, you use what is known to define its borders. Build the structure to support the space you will fill in. Finding a knowledge gap sparks interest. Filling that void is novel.

3. CONCRETE

Writing science seems to necessitate being concrete. After all, science is based on concrete data. But science is about ideas, and ideas are abstractions.

Science is a struggle between data and ideas. We even utilize abstractions to explain the concrete. The world is too complex to comprehend in its whole, so we build abstractions—models and theories—to simplify it. Experts can transform the concrete into the abstract. For a newbie, specific detail is a distinct item. An expert sees it as part of a larger set. The more we learn, the more abstract we can think about a subject. We can get so caught up in such abstractions that we overlook the foundations. I suffered as a researcher?because I had forgotten the simple explanations?used to establish concepts like a mole, valence, and stoichiometry.

The broadest abstractions are at the top of the ladder: survival of the fittest, plate tectonics, and so on. The facts—the data we collect—are at the bottom. Most readers can handle both.

The danger zone is in the middle—between concrete details and high-level concepts. This intermediate zone is populated by scientific concepts, schemas that are often exclusively retained by professionals. Survival of the fittest is taken for granted by evolutionists. Rather, they study sexual selection, Hardy-Weinberg equilibria, and gene drift. Molecular biologists write about knockout mutations, ribozymes, and transcriptional silencers, not the double-helix model. Environmental engineers use the term “multimedia modeling” to describe soil and water. Outsiders call these concepts jargon.

Scientists are drawn to the middle of the ladder of abstraction, thus we generally write articles for a small audience. Your specific notions can be grounded and defined in well-known schemas or in the details that explain abstractions.?

4. CREDIBLE

Credibility goes hand in hand with being concrete. We establish the credibility of our ideas by basing them on past work and citing those sources. We establish the credibility of our data by describing our techniques, presenting the data clearly, and utilizing relevant statistics. We establish the credibility of our conclusions by showing that they grow from those reliable data. We establish a chain that extends from past efforts into future directions. A break somewhere in that chain makes the whole undertaking lose credibility.

I recently examined a proposal, and after reading the introduction, I was prepared to detest the whole thing. The concepts had potential, but instead of fleshing them out, the authors filled them up with boldface, jargon, and hype. It wasn’t concrete, and as a result, it wasn’t credible—the writing style undermined the subject. I was astonished, though, when I came to the heart of the proposal: it was fantastic. There, the writers established that their program was well thought out and would, in fact, address all the program goals. The proposal only became plausible when it became concrete.

5. EMOTIONAL

This one irks scientists. Good science requires objectivity and rationality. Curiosity, on the other hand, is not only acceptable but essential in science. We become scientists to solve the mysteries of nature. Curiosity is the key to engaging us in your job. Asking a novel inquiry helps.

Without a compelling inquiry, you simply provide fresh information, appealing to a lesser feeling. You appeal to our nerdy side and our love of trivia. That won't get you an article published or a grant. The SUCCES formula's E element thus aligns with U. Curiosity is sparked by the unexpected, so capitalize on it. You engage emotion by focusing on knowledge rather than information. Change “what's my answer?” to “what's my question?”

Working on E in this way can enhance the effect of a paper but can also kill a proposal. Your plan will be judged by a panel of your peers, and it will be up against other strong suggestions. Excitement is required. Curiosity is the first acceptable emotion in science, followed by excitement. Work that engages and then fulfills our curiosity excites us.

5. STORIES

I emphasize telling stories—seeing and presenting your work as a tale. But stories are modular; a large story is made up of smaller story elements strung together. To create an excellent paper, consider internal structure and story module integration.

It's made up of three modules, each having its own tale and cast. The first was about scientists not telling stories.??Secondly, I utilized the tale of the discovery of DNA's structure to illustrate the scientific method. I feel?used to illustrate how “listening to your characters” might improve science. That these small pieces were sticky in their own right, and that they made a sticky overall plot.

Writers can utilize the same method. Find units in your data and concepts that you may group together. The reader will be able to grasp each component and see how they fit together.

To narrate a story or write science, you need all six SUCCES elements! Before you start writing, plan how you'll include them in your work. Pay attention to the simple story. Build it around U and E-centric questions. These will help you choose the material you present to make the story credible.

what you think about this method let me know in the comments below

For More Follow @saveenasolanki