Ko's Twitter 'Rant' About #COH, #SaveCOH, and What the Community is Becoming...

[Twisted Toon]

People stubbornly, almost religiously believe that if they basically think about their speech in their heads that's good enough.

There is a fundamental difference between thinking it and hearing it, even when its your own speech.  You see this all the time in many arenas.  People will describe a problem to you and then immediately figure out the answer.  Thinking about it failed, but just the act of speaking the problem aloud engaged a completely different part of their brains - the part related to communication rather than musing, and more importantly both the part related to speaking and the part related to listening.  Research pretty conclusively states that our brains are not as integrated as we think they are: consciousness itself is a deception on the part of the parts of the brain.  People with certain brain injuries, particularly to the corpus callosum, often show clear evidence that personality and cognitive traits are localized.  What we hear is processed differently than what we speak and what we think.

Auditory rehearsal engages thinking, speaking, and listening simultaneously.  Its using more of the brain to process your presentation.  We learn from an early age to be critical of the information we hear.  We are less critical of the information we think.  When we think a presentation, its like singing a song in your head: you always sound fantastic.  But when we speak it out loud to ourselves, the critical part of the brain we normally use to dissect what other people tell us is turned loose on our own speech.  It can often find errors, mistakes, omissions, and just plain goofiness in our presentations our internal thoughts can't.  We only know what it will sound like if we listen to it: there is no way to simulate that with internal thought short of years of practice, and even then.

I would bet deaf people encounter a similar situation between thinking a thought and signing a thought in front of a mirror or in their field of vision.  The part of their brain normally looking for "gotchas" when other people communicate with them has a better chance finding mistakes in their own signing than their own internal thinking, because that's where they have the most practice at it.

How does all of that relate to writing your speech? Or, writing anything for that matter.

I never practiced my presentations, but I did write everything down that I was going to talk about.
I put them in order, and put down the main points. Much like I did for the presentation slides, just more of of it.

My problem was never going long with a speech. Just the opposite. Same with my essays and papers.
I seem to be able to get all the pertinent information across in about half the pages that most everyone else did.
I got lower grades a few times because of that. But, I just find it very difficult to pad an informational paper with fluff, and I hate to repeat myself in a paper.

[Taceus Jiwede]

Pick that bass up!  It's so much fun.  Just learn the notes on the neck and if you know chords from playing guitar you'll be playing sooo quickly.  Takes time to get those fills and runs but it's so worth it.  I'm a chick bassist in a praise band, a really good one, and bassists simply not only provide that much needed bottom line and rhythm, we secretly control the group.  Yes, don't tell the lead guitarist or vocalist, but when they start off too slow it's bass woman to the rescue, bringing that tempo up.  (One of these days I want to get the t-shirt that says "Yes. I'm a woman.  Yes, I play bass.  Any questions?")

That is actually a very true statement about bass players controlling the group.  The drummer and bass player are the tempo.  The singer and guitar player always get the credit but my music theory teacher use to always say.  If the guitar player is off tempo then he needs to get back on it.  If the drummer or bass player is off tempo, that's the new tempo.

Best thing about the bass?  I only have to tune 4 strings, compared to my hammered dulcimer, which has 88!

  I love those things.  All 8 octaves right in yo face!  Not to mention all the micro-tones you can pop off with those bad boys.

One of these days I'm actually going to pick up that bass guitar I have sitting in my basement and learn how to play it

  Indeed you should, if you can read music alright and if I remember trombone is bass cleft(Haven't arranged in awhile) so you that part is already out of the way.  And the rest of is just all arpeggio's for beginners, if you are like me and have normal hands you can try a smaller bass.  Some of those things are huge and just require huge hands to play.

[Arcana]

How does all of that relate to writing your speech? Or, writing anything for that matter.

I never practiced my presentations, but I did write everything down that I was going to talk about.

Writing it down seems to have a similar benefit, but it usually takes longer for most people to write a speech than speak one.  Moreover many people write differently than they speak, which makes writing unsuitable as a form of rehearsal.

In general I think most people know that its easier to remember something they write down.  In much the same way that its funny when people say a problem out loud and then suddenly know how to fix it, its also funny that its often the case when we write things down to remind ourselves we remember it well enough to not need it, but the one time we fail to write it down is also the time when we forget and need the writing.  It can seem like bad luck, but I think eventually most people realize its not a coincidence: its causal.

My problem was never going long with a speech. Just the opposite. Same with my essays and papers.
I seem to be able to get all the pertinent information across in about half the pages that most everyone else did.
I got lower grades a few times because of that. But, I just find it very difficult to pad an informational paper with fluff, and I hate to repeat myself in a paper.

It is a separate, tricky skill to figure out how to pick a topic such that a presentation of that topic that neither radically omits major elements nor pads with unnecessary information clocks in at a specific time.  But its something that is very important to professional public presentations.  When presenting information in a private meeting or something, length is rarely a major issue.  But in public presentations you're generally given a speaking slot and expected to neither overrun the slot nor short the slot by too much.  So its something worth practicing just as much as all the other skills related to presentations.

It is never actually necessary to pad or repeat to make the time.  You give me a topic and a time and I'll create a presentation that runs that time. What it takes is the right perspective on the topic.  Keep in mind you're generally not being asked to be a wikipedia page with legs; part of your task when presenting material is to make it interesting to the audience.  It is usually that element that can be elaborated upon when it comes to time (and its often the thing that sends people *over* time).  No matter how small a topic might seem, there is always the question "why should anyone care about this topic" that can generally be counted upon for several minutes of time or more.

[Illusionss]

Twisted, you might well be talented enough to give a speech and have it be correct, the first time you recite.

I can tell you, I went to school with no one that talented. Instead of meeting the requirements, they prolonged their agonies for tens of minutes, often causing scheduling problems - because when 25+ people are supposed to give a 5 minute speech and most of them end up rattling on for 20+ minutes, you can imagine.

So while you have a system that works for you, in the main practicing one's speeches will stand the average person in very good stead. Worked for me.

[Segev]

The weird thing for me is that even when I speak it out loud to an empty room, if I go talk to somebody about it, I can often come up with a solution when the empty room didn't help. There is something about having the other person, even if it's just the facial cues that tell us where we need to elaborate, that at least helps ME out.

On the other hand, there are two ways to give a speech: prepare one, or speak extemporaneously. The former, you should always rehearse. The latter, you should make sure you're an expert on the subject. The latter requires speaking from the heart and mind at once. Both can be effective, but which works for you will depend on your own thought patterns. Speeches that are prepared ahead of time take practice to get into the right tempo and time. Extemporaneous speeches require deep, passionate familiarity with the subject matter, but will go as long as they need to because your points will be rapid-fire and concise with ever more elaboration as you loop back around to them.

[Arcana]

Twisted, you might well be talented enough to give a speech and have it be correct, the first time you recite.

I can tell you, I went to school with no one that talented. Instead of meeting the requirements, they prolonged their agonies for tens of minutes, often causing scheduling problems - because when 25+ people are supposed to give a 5 minute speech and most of them end up rattling on for 20+ minutes, you can imagine.

So while you have a system that works for you, in the main practicing one's speeches will stand the average person in very good stead. Worked for me.

Its also true that no one knows how good or bad their presentations are until they are forced to watch them on video.  That's when the perfect presentation starts to look very imperfect indeed.  I've often cringed at video recordings of presentations for which I got pretty good feedback - people tend to grade on a curve when it comes to public presentations, just because so many are really bad.  But that doesn't mean you can't get better by seeing what you do wrong and trying consciously to fix it.

In terms of time, the hardest presentation windows in my opinion are the ten minute presentation, the forty-five minute presentation, and the two hour presentation.  They seem to be the intervals that are the hardest to stay on target for.  The easiest are the fifteen minute presentation, half hour presentation and the one hour presentation.

(Those are real time windows I've been asked to present for.  The seven minute or 21 minute presentation might be harder, but no one is asked to give those usually)

And yes, unless you are a gifted and experienced speaker, I always recommend audible rehearsal.  I know no one personally that doesn't or wouldn't benefit from it.  I know people who can deliver without it, but that's not the same thing as saying they wouldn't be better with it, if they did it often enough to incorporate it into their routine (any disruption of routine can temporarily make things worse).

[Arcana]

The weird thing for me is that even when I speak it out loud to an empty room, if I go talk to somebody about it, I can often come up with a solution when the empty room didn't help. There is something about having the other person, even if it's just the facial cues that tell us where we need to elaborate, that at least helps ME out.

When it comes to problem solving specifically, I think there's a difference between talking to yourself and talking to someone else, because your consciously or unconsciously attempting to translate the problem for someone else in the latter case.  For some people, that translation can happen to a pretend-audience that isn't there, and for other people it only happens when there is a conscious target to translate for.

On the other hand, there are two ways to give a speech: prepare one, or speak extemporaneously. The former, you should always rehearse. The latter, you should make sure you're an expert on the subject. The latter requires speaking from the heart and mind at once. Both can be effective, but which works for you will depend on your own thought patterns. Speeches that are prepared ahead of time take practice to get into the right tempo and time. Extemporaneous speeches require deep, passionate familiarity with the subject matter, but will go as long as they need to because your points will be rapid-fire and concise with ever more elaboration as you loop back around to them.

That's true to a point, but I will note that preparation is a presentation strategy.  Impromptu speech is not.  No amount of passion or expertise guarantees that someone will be an effective speaker on any subject.  To deliver such a presentation requires *both* deep knowledge *and* innate eloquence.  The vast overwhelming majority of humans do not possess the latter.

Its generally true that the average person can deliver an impromptu presentation on something they are passionate and knowledgeable about far more than they can construct a presentation on something they are not.  But "better" is not synonymous with "good."

It is also true that any presentation someone gives on a subject they are passionate about will seem to them to be better than it probably was.  And they will probably be more likely to be defensive about any critique of it.  The challenge in this case is to overcome those barriers to getting any better at it.  If you think you're better than you are and you think any criticism of your performance is an insult you'll likely be permanently trapped in a state of not bad but not terribly good either.

[Electric-Knight]

My scatter-brained posts on forums are evidence of how poorly the improvised on-the-spot approach works, especially regarding subject matter I am not intimately familiar with (most of what I ever post about), thank you very much.
 

[Heroette]

I love how this thread has turned into "How to speak in front of an crowd".  Not complaining because it keeps me entertained (and I am learning alot about the subject).

[JaguarX]

Its also true that no one knows how good or bad their presentations are until they are forced to watch them on video.  That's when the perfect presentation starts to look very imperfect indeed.  I've often cringed at video recordings of presentations for which I got pretty good feedback - people tend to grade on a curve when it comes to public presentations, just because so many are really bad.  But that doesn't mean you can't get better by seeing what you do wrong and trying consciously to fix it.

In terms of time, the hardest presentation windows in my opinion are the ten minute presentation, the forty-five minute presentation, and the two hour presentation.  They seem to be the intervals that are the hardest to stay on target for.  The easiest are the fifteen minute presentation, half hour presentation and the one hour presentation.

(Those are real time windows I've been asked to present for.  The seven minute or 21 minute presentation might be harder, but no one is asked to give those usually)

And yes, unless you are a gifted and experienced speaker, I always recommend audible rehearsal.  I know no one personally that doesn't or wouldn't benefit from it.  I know people who can deliver without it, but that's not the same thing as saying they wouldn't be better with it, if they did it often enough to incorporate it into their routine (any disruption of routine can temporarily make things worse).

I never actually gotten or found anyone where I could do an audible rehearsal and have it help with my presentation. One reason I dont find those type of rehearsal to work is different audience. Different audiences have different reactions to the material and information. For one person that I rehearse with, they prefer only the read the slide presentations and anything outside of that he see something wrong with it, while that method may work with giving a business presentation pointing out profits, it will put most groups to sleep quick and thus you will lose the audience. Two, I've been doing this so long that I gotten good at reading my audience on the fly to the point I can tell if they are getting bored, restless, disbelieve or truely interested and adjust right then and there. I seen people who rehearsed and rehearsed and rehearsed and rehearsed a certain way so much that they just freeze up when the audience just fall alseep or the drone on and on and people walk away saying "that was one terrible presentation. I hope I dont have to sit through that again." Not to mention everythign from the set up to the actual place which may or may not be available prior to scheduled time to "perform" makes a difference from the rehearsal if you practice with a smaller group in smaller room then find ya self in a 200 plus man theater with a broken mike. And most people probably cant find a random 200 people that is willing or available to listen to a practice run. And lastly, people really suck at given constructive critism. I'm not sure if people just dont know the meaning of it or what. Watching other people get critique, many times it's "it was good." or "you can do better." Neither which help. So I just stopped doing that method about 5+ years ago after I realized I wasnt getting anything out of it.

[Arcana]

I never actually gotten or found anyone where I could do an audible rehearsal and have it help with my presentation.

If you never pause to fumble for the right words to say, never "uh, umm, err" in the middle of sentences, never have to stare at a slide to remember where you are in a presentation, then rehearsal is less likely to help you.

Its also significantly more likely you're a robot or have a significant memory disorder.  It is so rare for humans to have the set of qualities necessary to conduct presentations without rehearsal and without significant glitches that its more likely you'll meet a secret service ninja astronaut than you'll meet someone with them.

Rehearsal doesn't guarantee a good performance, it simply increases the probability the speaker will not make mistakes that rehearsal can eliminate.  And in a certain sense, anyone who says rehearsal cannot help them is saying that no matter how many times they deliver a presentation they will never get any better.

[Arcana]

I love how this thread has turned into "How to speak in front of an crowd".  Not complaining because it keeps me entertained (and I am learning alot about the subject).

The thread started with an implied question of whether the community is what it was.  I'm pretty sure this thread proves it is what it always was, although it also proves one of the things it always was was scatter-brained.

[Electric-Knight]

The thread started with an implied question of whether the community is what it was.  I'm pretty sure this thread proves it is what it always was, although it also proves one of the things it always was was scatter-brained.

Aw, I knew my posts fit in somehow.

[JaguarX]

If you never pause to fumble for the right words to say, never "uh, umm, err" in the middle of sentences, never have to stare at a slide to remember where you are in a presentation, then rehearsal is less likely to help you.

Its also significantly more likely you're a robot or have a significant memory disorder.  It is so rare for humans to have the set of qualities necessary to conduct presentations without rehearsal and without significant glitches that its more likely you'll meet a secret service ninja astronaut than you'll meet someone with them.

Rehearsal doesn't guarantee a good performance, it simply increases the probability the speaker will not make mistakes that rehearsal can eliminate.  And in a certain sense, anyone who says rehearsal cannot help them is saying that no matter how many times they deliver a presentation they will never get any better.

Experience and deep knowledge of the material. And the ability to step outside myself and give an honest critique hence learning to grow without havign to depend on people that may not have time interest or availability to help me rehearse. But many people dont have the ability to be honest withthemselves. Doesnt mean I think I cant get better, I just found a way to get better that works for my situation. There is millions of ways to get better and rehearsal is not the only one.

Not to mention as I said in an earlier post, I routinely have to give presentations at the drop of a dime because the original presenter either chickens out or not available. And I still can give good presentations even in those conditions because I know the information. Too many times have I seen people who cant present in tight schedules because they beleive the only prep method is rehearsal and thus say "I cant, I didnt have time to rehearse." Eventually people stopped goign to them and come straight to me because I say yes and ask a few questions, like how long is my time slot and what is the title. Get out there do my thing and collect my rewards afterwards. Sometimes rehearsal is not an option. The live presentation IS the rehearsal and one shot to do it. Thus, that is why I depend less on rehearsal because I know my job. As you said, ya right rehearsal is no gurantee of good presentation. I seen people rehearse something but have no idea or understanding what they are talking about and get out there and do well, that is, until someone asks a question and they go deer in headlights. It wasnt in the script they rehearsed and thus they have no idea what to do. They are lost.  Then I seen some people who just have no business giving a live presentation yet and probably should practice in one manner or another or learn the material better.


But as I said, rehearsal does nothign if cant find people that know how to give any sort of feedback that is helpful for anyone above 2nd grade level speech class. And thus I just adapted.

[Segev]

Note that what JaguarX is describing is extemporaneous speaking, and he has stated he has the prime requisite for it in the speeches he has given: deep knowledge of the subject.

[Twisted Toon]

Writing it down seems to have a similar benefit, but it usually takes longer for most people to write a speech than speak one.  Moreover many people write differently than they speak, which makes writing unsuitable as a form of rehearsal.

For the most part, I do talk the same way I write. Fortunately, writing lets me take back something that I really shouldn't say out-loud, before I post it out-loud.

I don't actually write a speech, as much as I write the salient points of the speech. That is probably one of the reasons that I tend to have short speeches. Which worked for me as the introductory speaker for the group presentations in school. Basically, my parts of the presentation boiled down to, "Hi, this is who we are, this is what we're talking about, and this is who is up next." Then I'd let the people that can talk for "years" go ahead and talk, while I do the support stuff like change slides for the people that have issues with that.

I will say that the group papers were graded well. Partially, I'd like to think, because one person wrote the introduction, the conclusion, and tie the various body parts together. That just sounded weird. But, that made the paper flow a little better than four parts just stapled together. It required me to know enough about the subject in order to make the tie-ins flow smoothly and make sense.

Seriously, I'm more of a behind the scenes guy, than the main course...I mean attraction.

If you never pause to fumble for the right words to say, never "uh, umm, err" in the middle of sentences, never have to stare at a slide to remember where you are in a presentation, then rehearsal is less likely to help you.

Those were some of the first things my Comm 101 instructor told us to avoid doing like the plague.
I counted the number of "ums" in one poor lady's 15 minute presentation once. I lost count after 35.
That was when I made a conscious effort to not utter a vocal pause in my presentations.

Also, I found that it helped if I had a projector hooked up to my laptop. That way, I can glance at the slide that the audience it looking at, while not turning my back to the audience. That gives the appearance that you know what you're doing.

Rule one was keep eye contact with the audience. Rule two was don't use "um, uh, or er".

I'm not saying that I'm perfect. Far from it. I just know a few little things that I probably don't practice as much as I should. 

Not to mention as I said in an earlier post, I routinely have to give presentations at the drop of a dime because the original presenter either chickens out or not available. And I still can give good presentations even in those conditions because I know the information.

My Comm 101 instructor just loved to pass the "hat of topics" and have us do a 5 minute speech on a random topic. Whether we knew anything about the subject or not.
I absolutely hated that part of the class. I guess I got an early start on my BSing in that class.

She also loved going to Toastmaster meetings.

[Arcana]

Experience and deep knowledge of the material. And the ability to step outside myself and give an honest critique hence learning to grow without havign to depend on people that may not have time interest or availability to help me rehearse. But many people dont have the ability to be honest withthemselves. Doesnt mean I think I cant get better, I just found a way to get better that works for my situation. There is millions of ways to get better and rehearsal is not the only one.

Not to mention as I said in an earlier post, I routinely have to give presentations at the drop of a dime because the original presenter either chickens out or not available. And I still can give good presentations even in those conditions because I know the information. Too many times have I seen people who cant present in tight schedules because they beleive the only prep method is rehearsal and thus say "I cant, I didnt have time to rehearse." Eventually people stopped goign to them and come straight to me because I say yes and ask a few questions, like how long is my time slot and what is the title. Get out there do my thing and collect my rewards afterwards. Sometimes rehearsal is not an option. The live presentation IS the rehearsal and one shot to do it. Thus, that is why I depend less on rehearsal because I know my job. As you said, ya right rehearsal is no gurantee of good presentation. I seen people rehearse something but have no idea or understanding what they are talking about and get out there and do well, that is, until someone asks a question and they go deer in headlights. It wasnt in the script they rehearsed and thus they have no idea what to do. They are lost.  Then I seen some people who just have no business giving a live presentation yet and probably should practice in one manner or another or learn the material better.


But as I said, rehearsal does nothign if cant find people that know how to give any sort of feedback that is helpful for anyone above 2nd grade level speech class. And thus I just adapted.

1.  As previously mentioned, saying rehearsal generally helps is not the same thing as saying preparing solely by rehearsal is a good idea.  In fact, I explicitly state that you should *not* rehearse to memorize a rote speech.  That's not the purpose of rehearsal.  The purpose is actually to a) generate familiar pathways to constructing expressible grammar from concepts, providing a safety net against aphasia, and b) to gain familiarity and comfort with delivering the material to give leeway in presenting the material with more flexibility and c) to increase the ability for self-editing to involve the hearing-based language centers of the brain, something that essentially no human being is capable of doing any other way.

2.  Rehearsal doesn't require an audience.  If it does, you're doing it wrong.  As with all prepatory options, there are ways to do it wrong.  It is just as possible to attempt to obtain "deep knowledge" about a subject and end up being a complete wreck in a public presentation setting.  Deep knowledge doesn't work automatically by itself either.

3.  People are usually not blank slates.  The specific tactics that work for you work within a system of other skills that other people won't necessarily have.  Rehearsal as a tactic doesn't require nearly as many prerequisite skills.  It does require practice like any other skill.

4.  People who think they've discovered an adequate approach to delivering public presentations are unlikely to be the people asking for advice on improving public presentations.  For the set of people asking for advice, the probability that rehearsal will improve their presentations is overwhelmingly high.


I am the best person I know in terms of delivering impromptu speeches.  I've been asked to deliver a presentation on a topic to replace a speaker literally at the moment.  That ability does not preempt the benefits good preparation can provide, and the best preparation uses every tool available.  Rehearsal is one of those tools.  You can do good presentations without it, particularly if you're a glib speaker.  Doing it doesn't guarantee delivering a good presentation, as no skill or knowledge does either.  However, it is the easiest tool to teach a new speaker, its a tool that has overwhelming evidence of its success in practice, and its the tool that has a constellation of benefits least likely to seem obvious to new speakers untrained to use it.  That makes it a singularly powerful recommendation.

As I also said, disrupting experienced people's routine has deleterious effects separate from any benefit new tactics can provide, so this is the type of recommendation that is most beneficial when its given to neophytes.

[Arcana]

My Comm 101 instructor just loved to pass the "hat of topics" and have us do a 5 minute speech on a random topic.

The problem I have with those assignments is not that I don't think they are useful - they are - its that rarely have I seen instructors explain to their students why they are useful.  I've even met instructors that don't *know* why they are useful or have an incorrect opinion on why they are useful.

The reason those assignments are useful is that they force speakers to practice "get to the point" skills.  There are two simultaneous challenges in the five minute impromptu.  The first is given a random topic, select a viewpoint or perspective that is interesting for that topic.  The second is to pick a thesis inline with the topic and the perspective, and get to the point of that thesis quickly.  The five minute impromtu presentation is barely a real presentation at all.  Its almost a pitch of a presentation.  And its often from that kernel of a presentation that a real presentation can be created around.  That's what makes it useful.

Basically, the five minute random topic presentation compels the speaker to ask and answer one question: "what's the point?"  Of course, it helps greatly if the knowledge of the speaker is highly cosmopolitan.  But even if you are not all that good at trivia pursuit, a good speaker can talk about five minutes even about topics for which they have limited knowledge.  Presentation judo would even encourage a speaker to spend five minutes on the topic of why they don't know more about the topic.

[Taceus Jiwede]

My Comm 101 instructor just loved to pass the "hat of topics" and have us do a 5 minute speech on a random topic.

 I use to love doing these in high school.  I know you are referring to a college course so a little different(by that I mean a lot)

But I use to love just going up and making up random facts and information about whatever the topic was.  While I always scored lowed on accurate information, I always scored high on making sound believable.  I don't really speak in public settings unless it is a show I am playing.  But I have noticed the most important thing is confidence, I know people say that a lot.  But you want to go up there not just knowing the information, but knowing that you are gonna rock their ear holes with your information.  The main thing is not let little mistakes hold you up.  No one is perfect and people are gonna make mistakes.  Its being able to move past it like its no big deal that is important, every professional knows they make mistakes and they show the crowd that is all it was, a mistake. And no mistake is gonna make you less knowledgeable of the subject matter.  I guess the best way to sum it up.  Go up there like you invented the topic and you know it better then anyone else.  "This is mah topic, now listen up!"

[JaguarX]

My Comm 101 instructor just loved to pass the "hat of topics" and have us do a 5 minute speech on a random topic. Whether we knew anything about the subject or not.
I absolutely hated that part of the class. I guess I got an early start on my BSing in that class.

She also loved going to Toastmaster meetings.

I loved those sessions from back in the day.
See humans seem to be mostly self concience and think people are paying attention to every little detail down to their twitches, when in fact they really are not. When people (novices) think they dont know a subject, they usually give themselves away, at least to me, before they even open they mouth by their demeanor. They look nervous, they lookd like they are searching for words to say. Then you have expert BSers, they can get up there talk about nothing at all but sound like they know it all like that and sad part is that not many people even think twice about what they said because they look and sound like they know what they are talking about. But when their speech is analyzed, people realize they have been had.