In my recent post, Wicked Problems And Vending Machines, I mentioned the triad of Logos (Logic), Ethos (Character), and Pathos (Emotion), the core elements of a persuasive argument as described by Aristotle.
However, I believe this is also a useful model of the internal psychology of humans: people have a blend of all three of these elements, weighted differently in each person.
For example, I would consider myself 70% Logos, 20% Ethos, 10% Pathos ( and more importantly, my wife would too!).
So what is the significance of this? Well, to convince me of a course of action, a person’s best bet would be an appeal to my reason, not my sense of right and wrong, and even less so to my emotions. (I would go even further and say that an argument appealing to my emotions would be a red flag for me and cause me to reject it out of hand.)
Making the conceptual leap my positive reaction to an argument which resonates will be similar to others, I suggest that the Logos, Ethos, and Pathos argument composition must somewhat match the individual’s Logos, Ethos, and Pathos composition for it to be effective.
And that’s the key takeaway here for healthcare institutions—such as the CDC—that are trying to encourage individuals to take reasonable public health measures. If people are principally Ethos or Pathos driven, then a heavily weighted Logos argument is likely to have the opposite effect, resulting in rejection out of hand. ( I made a similar argument in Emotional Coherence And A Wedge of Ambivalence).
So, if you are a healthcare executive or medical director, and your Logos argument is no longer effective, consider changing tracks, and move towards an Ethos or a Pathos-based appeal.