by Rusty Slade
When an article that takes 5 minutes to read changes your marriage for the better it is a well written article. Tyler Jamison in her article “Why It’s Important to Know How Much a Partner Can Annoy You” accomplishes exactly what she intended it to. There are three aspects that I noticed elevate its quality. Her writing is lean: every word counts. Also, she organized her ideas clearly. Lastly, the advice she gives is specific enough to be practical and nuanced enough to apply to a wide audience.
To summarize Jamison’s article, she starts by explaining that we seek positive traits in partners but overlook what negative traits we would be willing to endure. Then she explains that some of these annoyances and triggers are solvable but warns: “devoting too much time to the project of “fixing” a partner by changing those things that trigger us is rarely a useful investment of time.” She then outlines two strategies to help make life with a partner better. First, focus on what is solvable and not triggers unlikely to change. Second, to mind how we react to triggers.
The structure of Jamison’s article enhances its clarity. The heading “Choose Your Battles” encapsulates the advice of the second half of her article while the first half introduces the main problem and relates its struggles. The second half is more strictly organized. She uses the words “Two strategies” and “First” and “Second” which give an order to her ideas and advice. The four paragraphs that make up this half address one idea at a time. The first iterates on “Choose Your Battles” with research and an example, the second elaborates on the first strategy, while the third is focused on the second strategy, and the last ties the whole article together.
Adding to that point, length doesn’t necessarily make an article better. Tyler’s article is 8 paragraphs but gets the most mileage out of them. For example, take this sentence from her article which says: “Relationship researcher John Gottman has estimated that 69 percent of the conflicts we will have with out partners are fundamentally unsolvable because they are based on differences in lifestyle, personality, or opinion that are unlikely to change.” This sentence directly supports her advice in a way that she doesn’t need to elaborate on it further. Later in that paragraph she uses the 8 words “they might always chew louder than we would prefer” in the middle of a sentence to give an example of a trigger. Articles don’t have to be long to make an impact.
When giving advice in an article, the line between simple and nuanced can be difficult to navigate, but Tyler gives practical advice that fits expertly. Instead of giving vague or cliched advice like “the key to relationship is communication” she tells readers to “channel your energy toward addressing your “solvable” problems.” This doesn’t tell readers exactly how addressing the problems will go, but it does give them enough information to make effective changes. This level of practical specificity makes Jamison’s article work so well.
I’ve observed that these three aspects of Tyler Jamison’s article can improve the writing of science journalists. First, organize ideas and points thoughtfully so that the reader doesn’t get lost. Second, don’t bloat writing when the point is already clear. Third, when giving advice think carefully about how to make it specific enough to be practical but broad enough to apply to a wide audience.
Science Writings 
