Graphs and charts have their place, says Aaron Nichols, but the human brain responds to compelling stories
by Allen Best
Aaron Nichols, a Longmont resident, was on the stage of Comedy Works on the north side of downtown Denver in mid-May. The event was a semi-annual gathering sponsored by Switch, and although jokes litter the presentations, the Switch events have a very serious goal.
Those who give five-minute presentations mostly talk about the energy transition, very occasionally straying into water, agriculture and other topics. Nichols talked about energy, too, and he illustrated his take-home message with a story.
Nichols said on a conference call in which he participated, somebody talked about protestors worried about batteries spontaneously combusting and causing house fires.
“This person said, we sent our best analysts with charts and graphs, and they got shouted down. And my immediate reaction was, of course they got shouted down, because if I was worried about fire and someone showed me a graph, I, too, would be furious.”
Nichols had another example: “How many of you have ever been in a fight with your significant other and immediately show them a graph? How did that go? But we think that we can convince strangers of things the same way. We think that if we just do enough studies and throw them at the problem that they’re going to listen. This has not, does not, and will never work. That’s not how human psychology works.”
My companion, Cathy Casper, who attended the Switch event with me, has often said the same thing. In getting her master’s degree, she had a writing teacher at the University of Colorado-Denver who talked about how we learn. Our emotional connections captivate us, turn us, seal the deal where logic alone may come up short. We are creatures of reason, at least at times. But emotions persuade us.
“The brain is a pattern-seeker,” she said. “You can use compare and contrast, for example. But narrative is one of the most effective ways for the brain to learn. It’s probably because we evolved with accounts of what happened. There would be those who were able to relate the details within the fabric of a story. That is our natural way of learning.”
In a podcast called Think Fast, Talk Smart, Stanford University marketing professor Baba Shiv explained some principles of effective communicators. He made the same point about slide decks packed with numbers and charts — and added a further complication.
“We fail to recognize that the rational bit accounts for only about 5 to 10% of human decisions,” he said. “I’m not saying you can ignore the rational side. You have to provide enough fodder for the rational brain to be rational,” Shiv said.
“But first and foremost, you need to play into what the emotional brain is looking for, and that will actually depend upon the mindset of the individual. Is that person in a risk/rewards type of mindset or a risk-tolerant type II mindset? The type I error is a fear of making a mistake. Type II error is the fear of missing out on opportunities. Actually, it’s not a fear. It’s a desire for new opportunity.”
The simple reminder is to be careful about numbers and other factoids. At the Switch gathering, Nichols asked for a show of hands about which story was more powerful.
Story No. 1: “We built this solar energy system. It puts out 14.6 kilowatts of electricity. It is powered by 48 SunPower, 305-watt modules with 48TS optimizers.”
Story No. 2: “We built this solar system. It powers this greenhouse. It grows organic produce in inner-city Philadelphia. Students grow it, and they eat what they can, and they sell what they can’t in an on-site farmers market every week.”
If both are true, the latter story yielded all manner of attention, from a congressman willing to speak at the ribbon-cutting to a story on National Public Radio, Nichols reported.
Of course, narrative can be used for devious purposes, too. The New York Times in a May 25 story had this story: “How the Right Has Reshaped the Narrative Around George Floyd.”
The Times cited statements by Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. Disputing facts that most people once agreed on has become part of a new political playbook, often employed by right-leaning pundits and politicians, it said in the story by Shaila Dewan. “Media analysts say that a strategy like Mr. Shapiro’s can be effective. ‘Repetition and amplification equals truth for our brains, so this is how bad actors can hack the media,’ said Esosa Osa, the founder of Onyx Impact, a nonprofit that fights disinformation targeting Black communities.”
Nichols cited work by the Center for Economic Research and Policy that, he said, proved that stories and facts move people’s perceptions in the moment about the same amount.
Stories stay while facts decay. “People do look for facts, but only once they believe stories, only once there is an emotional connection. I don’t make the rules, but this is the game,” he said.
“Stories stick. Facts fade.”
Or maybe he should have said some facts fade. If facts stand out enough, they take on a life of their own. But a suitcase of facts? Not so well.
“If you think about what you remember from the past week, month or year, I can almost guarantee it’s a story, not a fact. Facts are for the in-group, for people who already care about what you’re talking about. Stories are for the out-group to develop an emotional connection, so that people will actually research those things themselves.”
Not all stories are equal, of course. “When we have someone’s attention, we better make damn sure we have something interesting to say, and most of the time we don’t. In calculating what stories to tell, the core questions are what power does that story have and why should the listener care.”
The key characteristics of “compelling stories is that they are simple, memorable, and tell a story,” said Nichols.
As for the facts? Cathy, my companion, sees the relationship in terms of a metaphor: Facts are like boats being carried on a river of narrative.
I’ll keep that in mind as I go about my journalism. Journalism is not the same as public relations and public advocacy, but they both aim for audiences. I’ve always understood that the stories of people resonate with other people. This Switch event reinforced my understanding.
:For more about Switch, see this story from December 2024: “What an esoteric bunch this is!”
- Speaking of Buffalo Commons - June 13, 2025
- Why climate change must be part of the Colorado River conversation - June 12, 2025
- Early flowers again this year. That’s good, right? - June 12, 2025
To me, Nichols’ example is itself an example of the failure of “climate” stories, or at least wind and solar stories. They’ve gotta be examples of some rare win-win-win situation. Involving “justice” and “equity” and never any capitalism or corporations. Rooftop solar and organic veggies for the underprivileged (or whatever the PC term is these days). Give me a break!
Lord forbid an elk is displaced or grouse disturbed. I could go on but this makes me need some aerobic wreckreation in what would otherwise be some critter’s habitat. Maybe go visit a pal in some exurban sprawl. Both of which seem to expand daily w/little objection in Colorado.
But yes, “stories” have gotten traction that wind and solar are ineffective, destructive and elitist. And toxic and flammable and abuzz with EMFs, and worse.
I recently attended a Montezuma County Planning hearing where the 50:5 sentiment against a well-designed solar farm was echoed by the board decision. Folks for the energy transition need better stories and storytellers for sure!
Each of us who read you, Allen, are the very person who should be thinking about our messaging. Our anxiety only goes so far. That my electrification of my house has worked quietly, efficiently, cost-effectively is a simple story and a counter narrative to all the money that has been poured out there to change people’s minds.