In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he defines rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.” He breaks down rhetoric into three key parts: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is an appeal to credibility, pathos to emotion, and logos to reason.

Truly persuasive people use all three, but also, are guided by a moral purpose—they are not going to advocate for something just because they want it to be true when that position is unsupported by evidence or expertise.

If I’m advocating something I know is unsupported by evidence and expertise or I haven’t even bothered to find out, I am not communicating ethically. If I mock experts and expertise because my feelings matter more and fuck the rest of you, I am not communicating ethically.

In turn, people will slowly or suddenly stop believing me because I don’t demonstrate integrity. In the extreme, my feed starts to look like John Nash’s shed in “A Beautiful Mind.”

Ethos in short:
1. Stay in your lane of expertise. You are a credible expert on very few things. Do not pretend otherwise.

2.If you’re out of your lane, establish credibility by citing those who are experts in the specific subject matter. On COVID 19 that means epidemiologists, virologists, immunologists, and public health experts. It does not mean your favorite talk radio host,

opinion media personality, life coach, politician, frat brother, or anyone who uses the word “sheeple” or listens to Creed.

3. We all want reality to conform to our preferred narratives. But your credibility depends on you recognizing that sometimes you can have strong feelings about something, but your feelings aren’t supported by experts, by evidence, or by experience.

By letting RELEVANT expertise lead, you build credibility and are significantly more likely to persuade. Integrity means you are doing what is right, even and especially when it is hard. That includes your communication.

4. Source credibility also depends on character—if your source is not one other experts recognize as legit on the topic, that person is not improving your persuasive effect. If your source is someone of very poor character—a racist, homophobe, transphobe, anti-Semite, misogynist,

birther, Nazi-curious, or someone who tolerates or amplifies bigots; if your source is someone who would benefit financially or politically from their advocacy; if your source is not peer reviewed; if your source is a bot, etc. you are not persuading,

you are getting a dopamine hit from your true believers telling you how “brave” and “independent” you are for sticking it to Big Math.

5. Persuasion requires good faith actors. If you’re dealing with someone who can’t or won’t engage expertise or evidence or someone who mocks experts or those who follow their advice as “sheeple” or someone who flaunts behavior that sends a fuck you to experts,

that person is not a good faith actor is not communicating ethically. You do not owe that person your time or energy.

Tomorrow: Pathos!