A Comparison of Two Explanatory Essays
In the two posts above, I explained the same mechanism by which a Parkinson’s medication increases the risk of developing pathological gambling, but to two different groups of audience. The first post targets people with scientific background, while the second post aims at the general population. To accommodate the difference in background knowledge these two groups might have, I wrote a formal and tightly structured first post, and a more light-hearted second post.
An apparent difference between the two post is the word choice. I did not hesitate to include jargons in the first post, but tried to use as many common words as possible in the second one. Since the goal of the second post was to explain a mechanism rather than to teach all concepts associated with addiction, I restrained from introducing every technical term. For example, instead of expecting the general readers to memorize the function of the three pathways, I used names that embed the function. So when I wrote “the motor pathway,” the readers would know immediately that this pathway is responsible for movement even without prior knowledge. Sometimes the scientific name was not indicative enough, and I had to create a more explicit term. For instance, in the first post, I described Mirapex as an “agonist,” which is a basic academic vocabulary, but might be foreign to the general audience. Without teaching the readers a new term, I referred to the drug as a “dopamine supplement.” This might not be the proper scientific term, but it denoted the essence of the drug’s function, and more importantly bridged a novel concept to an everyday object.
On rarer occasions, I had to simplify a concept and exclude some details from the second post. To put into perspective, the scientific audience would likely understand that the density of D3-like dopaminergic receptors is higher in the mesolimbic and mesocortical pathways, and that the lower dissociation constant of Mirapex to these receptors means higher uptake of the drug. However, for readers without scientific background, this might be too much information to take in, and not necessarily contribute to their comprehension of the mechanism. Alternatively, in the second post, I referred to these receptors as “Mirapex-loving brain cells” and omitted the dissociation constant part. Although this substitution left out some details, it made the complex portion of the post considerably more intelligible and fun to read.
Furthermore, the phrase “Mirapex-loving brain cells” also paralleled the “pizza-loving friends” from a recurrent analogy throughout the second post. In this analogy, the pepperoni shared by the three friends corresponds to the simultaneous delivery of dopamine to the three dopaminergic pathways; each friend represented a pathway, and their fondness for pizza was analogous to the pathway’s high affinity for dopamine. In retrospect, any analogy that involves simultaneous delivery of a matter to multiple entities, such as rainfall in desert and forest, and seasoning of food, would work. I chose the pizza analogy over the others, because it preserved the complexity of the subject while easily kept the readers entertained.
Besides this analogy, I also spiced up the second post with extra pieces of information, to make it more memorable for the non-scientific audience. For instance, in the opening paragraph, I took a hypothetical “first-rate surgeon” as an example of Parkinson’s patient, and then mentioned it throughout the post to tie the introduction, body, and conclusion together. In addition, I also included an actual legal case after explaining the mechanism, so that the readers could situate the abstract neurological process in real life. Granted, the surgeon example and the legal case might not directly contribute to the explanation of the subject matter, but I did think they served important role in keeping the readers attentive from the beginning to the end.
From writing these two explanatory essays, I realized that simple word choice and analogy could help break down a complex concept, while real-life examples could make an abstract idea more relatable. For the more informed audience, a clear and compact structure could greatly improve the efficiency in the communication of an intricate theory.
