The Techman vs. The Layman

In the first technical post, I tried to be as specific as possible. Keeping in mind that my audience has a scientific background, I was able to drop many keywords, phrases, and terminology specific the biological fields of study. I used words such as “selective pressure”, “extrachromosomal deoxyribonucleic acid”, “transposons”, “bacteriophage”, “binary fission”, and “capsomeres”. All of these are examples of molecular components or processes. I did not have to worry about whether or not the reader would understand them because anyone with a scientific background will be able to relate to this jargon. I went on to describe the various factors and steps of antibiotic resistance in great detail. I talked about genetic mutation, the sharing of genetic material, and virus interactions. I did not have to explain basic concepts like genetic mutation and how enzymes work because those are straightforward for my audience. Since the sharing of genetic material and virus interactions are a little more complex, I did go into further detail, but not to explain terminology or phrases to my audience. I figured my audience would generally have a good idea of those operations, but going further into detail allowed me to be even more scientific and add more jargon. Expanding on those topics granted me the opportunity to introduce words such as “conjugation”, “intercellular junctions”, “histones”, and “capsid”. My language was very eloquent and lucid. My voice comes across as extremely well educated, and I am speaking from a position of experience while clearly possessing a strong vocabulary and a wealth of knowledge. I think my flow and pace are rather quick, but that is attributed to me taking for granted that my audience is from a scientific background. I did not have to slow down to explain anything to the readers.

The second layman’s post was quite different from the first technical post. The audience of the second post is a general audience containing individuals not inclined with a scientific background. Considering this, I had to adjust my content, my style, my voice, my pace, and my descriptions. One of the biggest differences in the second post is that I had to explain many of the concepts. My audience in this post was not going to naturally know about antibiotic resistance, genetic mutation, conjugation, or bacterial asexual reproduction. Those are all terms and phrases that I had to briefly explain when I introduced them into my writing. I could not just drop them and keep going because my readers would have gotten lost. I also introduced an analogy early on that stayed consistent throughout the post. I compared the concept of bacteria adjusting to antibiotics to the concept of a batter in baseball adjusting to a pitcher. I picked this analogy for two main reasons. First, I played baseball growing up, so I thought about it immediately when I was trying to brainstorm analogies and metaphors. Because I am so familiar with baseball, it was a comparison I could easily explain. The second reason why I picked this analogy is because I thought it was relatively simple for any reader to understand. It is very plain and straightforward how I talk about a batter adjusting to a curve from a pitcher. Additionally, baseball is not America’s most popular sport, but if there was a time of year when even a novice would be able to relate, it is right now because of the World Series and the Chicago Cubs. When an antibiotic reaches bacteria, it impacts it and kills it. When a pitcher throws a sharp curveball, he strikes the batter out. If the bacteria keeps encountering the same antibiotic over and over again, eventually it was adapt and the antibiotic will be effective. If a batter keeps encountering that same pitcher’s curveball over and over again, eventually the batter will adjust to it, and the curveball will be ineffective. I think these two concepts parallel each other pretty well. My language was very general and commonplace. There are not a lot of big, fancy, complicated words. My voice is rather tame and reserved. I am not braggadocious, but rather I come across as a common man preaching to my fellow common people. My flow and pace is much slower in this post as compared to the first post. I had to explain quite a few concepts and define several words, so my writing moves at a much more temperate speed.