The skill-set we discussed and practiced was about being on your feet and presenting to a live audience and to media. Body language, at the risk of sounding commonplace, does constitute the greater part of communication. Many dismiss it as “mere packaging”, a beautification that adds little to content. This, clearly, misses the point. The point being that it constitutes a language that therefore carries content. The critics would argue that only the facts matter. Well, precisely, and body language, presentation, the “meta-text” (or sub-text) of the presenter’s disposition towards themselves or towards the audience are themselves facts no less. Moreover, an engaged audience is an audience to which the message registers.

An interesting point Malcom made pertained to mannerisms; in response to a comment that one should do away with them, he noted that idiosyncrasy is to be cherished as it is the carrier of uniqueness and, so, even some mannerism may fall into this category and should, thus, be salvaged. Of course, not to the extent of being distracting. And that relates to the bigger point he made. He asked us to discuss central elements of an effective presentation in general. My mind went to two categories, “technique”, in the sense of projecting the voice, making eye contact, avoiding “hum”s, gesticulating (if that’s the right word) but to the right degree etc. The second category, I thought, was either related to the content itself or to how the presenter stands towards themselves, the content, and the audience. Malcom’s perspective was on two different axes: confidence and distraction. He argued that the presenter should be confident (which sounded reasonable but made me wonder why that is, obvious as it may sound). The second axis was to minimize distractions such as bad powerpoints, fidgeting, etc. Later he referred to the value of the critical supportive friend for feedback.

He stressed the significance of eye contact: 1. eyes not tops of heads as he confessed to do when he himself is tired 2. even to a 6,000 people audience as he once had to do in TX 3. don’t “persecute” one person of the audience and, thus, effectively ignore everybody else

An analogy he used was that of expanding the tube/circle of communication from one’s very self towards an audience. He stressed the stark distinction between  ”standing there and saying things” to actually connecting and communicating with an audience.

Charismatic speakers give you the impression that they talk directly, personally to you, he noted.

Pen. Holding a pen. Why? If you hold a pen you need to justify it by doing something with it. Don’t just hold a pen and do nothing with it or, then, it becomes a distraction. This rule applies in theatre, he noted, any prop has got to be justified. It also reminds me of my notion of Aporia. If you hold something, you create Aporia about it. You need to resolve it. You’ve created a desis and it demands a lusis which, if not supplied, will bring about frustration.

Hands can be moved according e.g. to categories set out in the content (“it’s this, that, and the other” along his respective gestures), they can emphasize, they can mime, they can perform all sorts of functions. However, they risk distracting if the dosage is too much.

The notion of the security blanket came to mind when he referred to notes and pens.

If you loose your thread, don’t make it a problem for the audience. Acknowledge it if necessary, deal with it, overcome it, move forward, don’t get stuck and labor the point, you are responsible for their emotional welfare whilst you lead them with your magical pipe, you collectively sculpt the blobs of attention they provide, so cherish them.

[people may not recall what you told them, but they will re-member how you made them feel]

Again, Malcom emphasized the sharp but often subtle distinction between “standing there and saying stuff” and truly, effectively sharing, communicating, relating to an audience. He referred to the constant, live connection and awareness that stand-up comedians have with their audiences. Another point he made was between “captive” audiences, as Manos put it, and audiences by choice. Academic presenters may often suffer from the luxury of having secured audiences, if the student are absent they will fail the class. Media, however, need to “win” their audiences each time. Of course, this may well lead to sensationalism, however the distinction is important.

Routine: walk onstage, on the part of the floor you will stand on, say to yourself “I am going to enjoy this”.

Modulating one’s voice vs. speaking at the same tone.

Provide structure, people want to be clear on what is being said at any given time.

.ppt: don’t put up your notes, too much text indicates bad usage, use short phrases and images, as appropriate
B-> black
W-> white
12 [return]-> slide 12

Preparing for a TV interview, many media outlets out there

Here was the point about the captive audience demarcating between audiences by choice vs. audiences by obligation.
Like cats, they take no orders, they need to be lured in and they will only stay as long as they care to, then they will leave.
No obligation of anyone to listen/care, they need to be won over, seduced.
No talking down to, adapt the message to the audience, the media will stand no lecturing.

Be concrete, simple not simplistic.
Keep the interest high, not too heavy, not too deep, imagine talking to a person.

“You don’t have a cats chance in hell to find your place in notes during an interview”

Prepare a factsheet: who you are, your photo, what the topic is, your email, your website, your bio

What do you want to say, what is your message, what are the key points to get across the audience, what should you anticipate from the critics?

A method for preparing for an interview with the media:

1. Summarize
The proverbial mail boy gets 30-seconds for their elevator-pitch with the CEO to put it in a nutshell and convince them to act on a novel idea

2. Prioritize
Obsess with your No1, No2, and No3

3. Illustrate
Don’t be abstract, provide examples, illustrate, be concrete, tell stories

4. eNcapsulate
Leave with a quote, a soundbite, [possibly a call to action too]

=SPIN

Beyond doubt, spinning has negative connotations, but in this context and under this definition it is about rendering a topic relevant, engaging, accessible, and entertaining to the respective audience.

The tennis analogy
An interview is like a tennis match, you need to intercept the ball and sent it where you want

Manos put it well, “don’t be passive, don’t be aggressive, be assertive”

Malcom provided an example from back when he was learning drive. He kept driving in zig zags until the instructor stopped him and said “You are afraid of this car and you keep your attention to the boundaries of the vehicle itself. Stop that. Focus ahead, on the direction, on the horizon, on the destination.” And Malcom drives steadily since. The analogy is with the tennis analogy and the interview questions. Don’t worry about answering them. Focus on the priorities you want to broadcast, project, share.

Irrelevant, CBT was mentioned and sounded interesting, neurons change as a result, should look into it.

TV is all about impressions, use your hand, it makes your face more animated too.

Critical path theory

Build the logic tree equivalent for your presentation and lead your audience through it, step by step, from A, to B, to C.

What is the model one follows, I wondered, when crafting a presentation.
It seems that there is this quantity call attention and the ball must be kept up.
Others are blobs of attention that is malleable and is to be sculpted. Structure matters, lusis and desis, build up tension and then release it, talking as building.

Minute Physics on youtube was mentioned

Science shows are of two categories, it was noted: those that rest on the wow factor and those that manage to forge relevance between the topic and the audience’s daily life.

The day closed with 5 top tips for public speaking:

1. Be 110% sure of the very first things you are going to do and say, precisely
There is a radical perspective change from the moment you sit at the audience to the moment you are called on the podium. Suddenly, you see things you were not aware of, your mind will start processing all sorts of new stimuli: new faces, people entering and exiting, a totally new set of data. Don’t improvise at that moment, it usually doesn’t work. Plan your initial steps and phrases thoroughly, it’s what makes a difference between a good presenter and a charismatic one. Make maximum impact. The beginnings of things are very important. Rehearse and plan, don’t improvise, don’t make it up as you go along. First impressions count, we make quick/snap judgements: “is that presenter going to be boring or not?”. Great speakers are sure-fire, on the button.

2.  Pacing
Malcom started to fill a very small cup with a bottle of water. The bottle is what the presenter knows about their subject, the latter is the capacity of the audience, irrespective of intelligence. Pace. Don’t fill it up too early or too quickly. Don’t stuff the other, spoon-feed them, in terms or rhythm, don’t cram it all in, it won’t work, it won’t be absorb, and the whole exercise is judged upon its effectiveness, else it might as well not happen at all. Avoid overflow, prioritize, make sure to share those 5-7 crucial points, don’t waste the available capacity on secondary content that will take up valuable cognitive space and precious attention.

3. Stepping stones not rope bridge
Malcom scattered 5 A4 pages on the floor.
A talk consists of successive stepping stones, it is not a rope bridge in the air. In the latter analogy, if something goes wrong, all is lost. However, in the former analogy, not all is lost, bases are captured successively, the accumulate, and they are not retroactively jeopardized if something goes wrong, the previous bases are kept, and a new base is there to be added to them.

4. Be a connoisseurs of good communication
Jot down your ideas and also jot down observations about what works in other presenters

Creative destruction is the process whereby innovation renders the previous technology obsolete. More generally, it refers to the, prosaically stated, process of the new displacing the old. Like any oxymoron that respects itself, it sounds like a contradiction-in-terms as it includes both a positive element, creative, and a negative one, destruction. In effect, the concept serves to qualify a negative phenomenon, destruction, as a positive one instead, under certain conditions i.e. in the context of innovation. An innocent textbook example that illustrates the concept is how Polaroid instant cameras were displaced by the introduction of digital cameras.

With destructive creation we can turn creative destruction on its head to describe a phenomenon of an altogether different domain. We often find ourselves chasing down too many stimuli e.g. we accumulate hyperlinks of websites that seem promising and claim our future attention. It could be a brainpickings article on the history of bits. Clearly, there is nothing wrong about such a stimulus per se. As, however, additional stimuli enter the picture, they are added to respective Augeas’ heap, attention to the previously accumulated stimuli is undercut.

As with creative destruction, the new undercuts the old, but now the overall evaluation is negative not positive. That is the crucial distinction; in creative destruction the digital camera destroyed the Polaroid but this was, overall, positive, thus the qualifier creative as the benefit outweighed the cost. However, in the ADHD state that largely characterizes our daily habits, the prima facie positive impact of giving attention an additional stimulus is, in effect, negative when evaluated for its total impact of detracting from delving deeper into an older stimulus.

The motivation for putting together the concept of destructive creation in came about in a desire to codify the state in which more of a good thing can be a bad thing, in terms of stimuli. Scot Beltsky describes a similar phenomenon in his idea plateaus http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/03/18/scott-belsky-idea-plateaus/ . Seth Godin has also referred to something quite related in his Dip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dip.

The sirens of micro-novelty function at the cost of energy focusing and nourishing worthier endeavors.

Often times, when you address someone initially they ask you to repeat what had you just said.
It is as if, drawing from signal theory, the first utterance serves as a handshake, it transmits to the other person the meta-text ”open up your receiving channel, I am about to transmit some data”. Then the data can be processed as the attention has been activated on the receiving end. So, the very first utterance could well have been something incomprehensible given that it will have been followed by a request for its repetition afterwards, regardless of its content. Thus, to the extent that the first utterance serves merely to activate the other’s attention, it does not require to carry semantic content, merely aural, auditory, any sound, any oscillation of pressure will suffice. So, next time start out by saying “gobowda”.

]]> http://www.dimitris-makris.com/2012/03/08/eins-ist-keins-the-initial-utterance-functions-like-a-handshake-forfeiting-its-semantic-content/feed/ 0 http://www.dimitris-makris.com/2012/03/07/non-see-through-vehicles-as-negative-externalities/ http://www.dimitris-makris.com/2012/03/07/non-see-through-vehicles-as-negative-externalities/#comments Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:59:18 +0000 Dimitris Makris http://www.dimitris-makris.com/?p=1244 you drive
and the car in front of you is not see-through
so you can’t see through
frustrating

by see-through car reference is made to the standard type of car which affords looking through it
your line of vision passes through the front car’s rear window and front window
and this allows you to have a better sense of the overall traffic in your lane
in the opposite case, when an SUV or a truck is in front of you
then you forego the sense of the traffic ahead
and this constitutes the negative externality of non see-through vehicles

The facial expression displays the psychological state of the moment.
The tone of voice similarly so.
The above two can be considered as cross-section data, instants, photos, slices of time, synchronic manifestations.

However, if we consider the orthogonal dimension (in the temporal cross) i.e. time-series data, across time, diachronically, and the facial characteristics can be viewed as an underlying constant grimace and the type of voice can be interpreted as expressing a relatively stable, continuous and resilient mood denominator.

Thus, the momentary tone of voice is a derivative of the general type of voice.
Conversely, the facial characteristics constitute an algebraic integral of the facial expressions.

The above derives from the observation that upon meeting someone, one feels that their tone of voice and their face could be considered suggestive or even indicative of their character at large.

thymos = anger
thymamai = I remember
in Gk

they both originate from the same room “thym”
so, one could plausibly speculate that there is a connection between anger and memory
which, in turn, could relate to the imprint that an intense experience creates
anger -> intensity
intensity -> memory
surely, however, the above induction is not all that solid as e.g. eros->intensity->memory

T-cells are called so because they derive from the Thymus gland
T-cells are immune cells
anger can be thought of as fire
it tends to have a negative connotation but, effectively, it is focused energy, intensity, and one can only evaluate it with respect to how it is employed
thyo = the wild blowing of the wind
thyo = I sacrifice

*Success should be thought of as impact on the milieu

It is not that the above routine is unreasonable.
The bias rests in our compulsion to presented with some options prior to choosing.
And, more importantly, the reflexive/automatic/unlocking of any hesitancies after browsing through our available options.
Unlocking and available are the key concepts here.
As with any bias, it renders us susceptible to manipulation.
So, what type of manipulation is associated to this one?
I offer you the illusion of choice.
I offer you a biased menu, the range of options is a priori loaded, restricted, meroleptic.
Then, you exhaustively browse.
Your inhibitions have been unlocked for you examined “all” your options.
And, thus, you confidently choose, commit yourself.
What escapes you, is the universe of choices outside the concocted menu, the “available” choices.
But, cognitively and psychologically, you remain oblivious to the fact.
And that is how this manipulative maneuver is achieved.
You’ve been framed. You got served.