Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Writing and Speaking

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 240 posts

Re: Writing and Speaking

#11

Post by pg »

alain94040 wrote: post #8

I disagree with pg's opinion in that case. I think what he describes is correct as far as it applies to his style of speaking, but there are many cases where a speech format conveys information better and is more articulate than reading an essay. Think of TED talks for instance. It's ok for any one person to perfer words, but not everyone prefers reading to a face to face meeting. If that were the case, imagine all t…

not everyone prefers reading to a face to face meeting. If that were the case, imagine all the VC pitches consisting of reviewing business plans rather than live pitches.

That's the worst counterexample one could choose. The reason investors want to meet founders in person is precisely because they care as much if not more about the people than the idea.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#12

Post by pg »

cperciva wrote: post #9

I wouldn't say that I'm a good speaker, but I'm certainly a much better speaker than I used to be. It's not just about transmitting a certain number of bits of information per minute; it's also about making sure that those bits are being received at the other end. I often throw jokes (and quasi-jokes, like my "purpose of cryptography is to force the US government to torture you" line) into talks as a way to help keep…

Being a better speaker doesn't necessarily mean your ideas are going to get worse. (I said in the first paragraph that I wished I were a better speaker. Why would I wish for that if I thought it made your ideas worse?) It's just alarming to me how little being a better speaker depends on making your ideas better.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#14

Post by apl »

It's a bit too easy and somewhat condescending to brush off public speaking as strictly inferior to written communication. In fact, I disagree strongly with Graham's stance. Sure, pure information transmission is enhanced in written form: there's less noise, the reader can skip and backtrack at will, and so on.

Speaking, however, gives you many more channels, and I refuse to consider these channels (inflection, speed, choice of words, prosody, emotionalization, what have you) mere baggage. Also, it's deceiving to propose that essays are baggage-free. Good style makes a huge difference, even in writing. Compare the great essayists to lowly part-time bloggers: the difference rarely boils down to just ideas. Delivery matters. Emotional content, something Graham appears to see as noise, distorts and enhances in written and spoken form alike.

All in all, I find it a bit too convenient that a mediocre speaker and good essayist happens to think writing is simply the better medium.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#15

Post by padobson »

"[A] person hearing a talk can only spend as long thinking about each sentence as it takes to hear it."

This is where discipline enters. When a speaker says something that fires a massive neuron in your brain, ignore the next five-ten sentences the speaker is saying and start writing.

When you're in school, you take notes on lectures to pass a test, so you have to listen to every sentence. School trains your brain to do this, and you need to untrain it.

When you're at a conference, you're listening to the speaker so you can do something (hopefully) excellent with the information they're giving you.

When the speaker provides you with a spark of inspiration, that's when you need to disengage from the talk and let your own brain take it from there. You'll only miss a handful of sentences, and you'll pack a thought-food lunch for later. You'll get more out of the talk then if you try to consume and register every sentence - many of which won't be nearly as useful.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#16

Post by philwelch »

apl wrote: post #14

It's a bit too easy and somewhat condescending to brush off public speaking as strictly inferior to written communication. In fact, I disagree strongly with Graham's stance. Sure, pure information transmission is enhanced in written form: there's less noise, the reader can skip and backtrack at will, and so on. Speaking, however, gives you many more channels, and I refuse to consider these channels (inflection, speed…

> All in all, I find it a bit too convenient that a mediocre speaker and good essayist happens to think writing is simply the better medium.

Perhaps it is more the case that a man who thinks writing is the better medium has spent more time developing his skills as an essayist than developing his skills as a speaker. In fact, I see the essay as a justification for that decision.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#17

Post by henrikgs »

pg strike me as a good speaker. Yes the "uhm" thing was a bit too much on the pycon video, but I think that is easy to get rid of with a little bit of training

"Sometimes I have to pause when I lose my train of thought."

A lot of people state this as a fault in their presentation skills, but is it really? It can be quite powerful and captivating with pauses in an ever streaming chain of talking, and I really don't think the audience mind.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#18

Post by VMG »

I don't agree that good speakers make the audience dumber. There are and have been a lot of good speakers that can transmit ideas in an entertaining way without compromising on content. Christopher Hitchens and Neil deGrasse Tyson come to mind.

It certainly is hard work to get there, but it may be worth it. For example, I didn't watch the pycon video because I've seen the comments and can't tolerate bad sound quality or speech that is difficult to follow. Sorry.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#19

Post by cperciva »

pg wrote: post #12
cperciva wrote: post #9

I wouldn't say that I'm a good speaker, but I'm certainly a much better speaker than I used to be. It's not just about transmitting a certain number of bits of information per minute; it's also about making sure that those bits are being received at the other end. I often throw jokes (and quasi-jokes, like my "purpose of cryptography is to force the US government to torture you" line) into talks as a way to help keep…

Being a better speaker doesn't necessarily mean your ideas are going to get worse. (I said in the first paragraph that I wished I were a better speaker. Why would I wish for that if I thought it made your ideas worse?) It's just alarming to me how little being a better speaker depends on making your ideas better.

Being a better speaker doesn't necessarily mean your ideas are going to get worse.

I must have gotten the wrong message from that essay. It seemed to me that from about the third paragraph onwards you were itemizing the bad things about good speakers.

Post reply on HN