Live data from Hacker News

Writing and Speaking

paulgraham.com

141–150 of 240 posts

Re: Writing and Speaking

#141
post #105
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you think that passage implies "people who speak [well] cannot think." All I'm saying is that speaking well depends little on having good ideas. That doesn't imply people who speak well can't have good ideas, just that they don't need to. Playing soccer well depends little on having good ideas. Is someone who says that saying "clarity of thought or soccer ability, pick one?"

Now you're putting a spin on that passage that's simply not in the text. Quit the contrary: it's the opposite of what your essay seems to be suggesting. > "I don't want to be a good speaker." Why would you think that if rhetoric ability and good ideas are fully orthogonal? It'd amount to "The dude on stage is a brilliant speaker, which has nothing to do with inventiveness and clarity of thought, so I don't want to be…

[deleted]

Re: Writing and Speaking

#142
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…

Derrida thought a whole lot about the spoken word vs. writing. According to logocentrist theory, speech is the original signifier of meaning, and the written word is derived from the spoken word. The written word is thus a representation of the spoken word. Logocentrism asserts that language originates as a process of thought that produces speech, and it asserts that speech produces writing. http://www.angelfire.com/…

I agree with that. Good writing should sound like spoken language. One of the classic mistakes of beginning writers is to use excessively formal diction, e.g. to use connectives like "furthermore" that they'd never use when speaking.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#143
I agree with the general argument that ideas are best capture in writing but I think there are some important points that are left out in this piece:

1) When you are listening to a talk/speech, you are hearing information at the speed which the speaker chooses. Less time is given to process individual concepts unless you're able to rewind. When you are reading, time is less of a factor. Now think about what this means for writing vs. speaking.

2)The role of the spoken word in teaching should be highlighted. Some people learn better when they hear something. One great example are the talks on the site The Khan Academy. Information is being conveyed in spoken and visual terms to thousands every day and writing is more of an afterthought.

3) I was once given the privilege of delivering the graduation speech to my university class. Before I prepared my speech, I asked the college president what advice he had on speaking to such a large audience of peers and parents. His response was this: "Just have a conversation with your class." I took this to heart and thought what message would resonate with my classmates who had worked hard during their academic careers. Now many were going to go out into the workforce and this undoubtedly would bring anxiety, confusion and excitement. Tapping into this emotion, I constructed the speech's core idea to be a simple one: Build yourself a career worth retiring from. It's no coincidence that I was able to create a speech only after I wrote out my thoughts and got feedback from the people that I trust. Writing the speech took 5 days, practicing and perfecting the speech took 2 weeks.

The point I want to make is that writing and speaking are best used in tandem. You'll never know what you want to say until you can write what you think. At the same time, after you have written it down, telling others your idea in the form of speaking is the best way to tweak your idea and get feedback. Perhaps in the entrepreneurial world, that's why we want to see people pitch their ideas in public. Think about all the serendipitous/transformative moments that have occurred when people pitch their ideas through speaking. Surely, this is a skill which members of the YC Community can do better to embrace as well as strive to improve.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#144
Good speaking, like good writing, is about narrative. They are delivered in different ways and each approach is powerful in its own right. A good speaker is often able to get ideas through to a broader audience more effectively than the written word, and definitely you can connect to your audience in ways you can't in writing.

It seems somewhat ridiculous to say one is better that the other. Both are important, both can be effective. Some are good at one or the other. A smaller number are good at both. Personally, while I love reading essays (including PG's), listening to a great speaker can be inspiring and present many ideas and points to ponder.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#145
I saw Paul speak at the first Startup School in 2005, where he literally read his talk on stage from an essay he held in his hand. I saw him again at PyCon 2012, and he's improved a lot. But this article makes me think that he still sees speaking as a kind of poor delivery mechanism for an essay. They're really different beasts.

I wrote a longer article about what goes into good public speaking for a technical audience over here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3721333

Re: Writing and Speaking

#146
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a better speaker doesn't necessarily mean your ideas are going to get worse. In your essay, you say: Being a really good speaker is not merely orthogonal to having good ideas, but in many ways pushes you in the opposite direction. Paraphrasing the above passage, "being a really good speaker ... pushes you in the opposite direction [of having good ideas]". These two statements seems to be in direct contradiction…

No. It just means you have to expend extra effort.

This is interesting. So you think that being a good speaker negatively impacts one's ideas, although it won't necessarily be noticeable to others? That is because those who are good speakers have counteracted the negative impact with more practice.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#147
I think pg seems to have confused great speakers with great entertainers. The mark of a great speaker is one who conveys complex ideas with (apparent) ease, not simply one who engages and entertains the audience. While those qualities are certainly helpful, unless the audience comes away with some level of understanding, in my opinion, the speaker has failed.

A great speaker distills ideas and arguments down to their core essence so they can be easily absorbed. While, in the speaker, this may not be a source for ideas, it should be a catalyst of ideas for the listener. In this, the speaking is superior to that of the written word. This is especially true if you are in a room full of people who approach you after when it could quickly turn out to be a source of ideas for the speaker as well.

Further, all the issues pg seems to have with speaking could just as easily be applied to writing. I have read more nonsensical fluff wrapped up in a entertaining package than I care to admit. The written word is just as powerful at selling snake oil as the spoken one.

The only talks I find useless are for subjects I know well. However I have seen some fantastic talks on topics that I knew nothing about which sparked ideas I would not have had otherwise. I have given talks that have likewise provoked a lot of discussion which helped me refine my own ideas.

Maybe pg is just going to (or giving) the wrong talks. Or maybe he underestimates how good of a speaker he is.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#148
post #58

I dunno, I think the definition of "good speaker" really depends on the audience. I probably speak for many here as an introverted, deeply introspective outlier. I have seen many great speakers in person (Tony Robbins, Zig Ziglar, Deepak Chopra, Steven Covey) and almost always come away underwhelmed. I struggle to understand why the audience gets so worked up with so little content transferred. I have trouble with co…

"I dunno, I think the definition of "good speaker" really depends on the audience."

I agree with most of your post. But I'd actually invert that relationship. A good speaker is someone who understands his audience, so that he can maximize both his connection to it and his impact upon it.

The intent of speaking, and the intent of writing, aren't altogether different. In either case, a typical goal is to convey information to an audience, and to maximize the audience's uptake of that information. Uptake naturally follows from conveyance, and successful conveyence depends upon successful connection (or "breakthrough"). So, it stands to reason, knowing one's audience is a necessary precondition to engaging one's audience. Some audiences are tougher to engage than others. And what necessarily breaks through for Audience A may fly right over the heads of Audience B, or piss off Audience C, or strike Audience D as a joke.

This distinction is important to make, because too many people write or speak primarily for themselves. They assume a hypothetical audience of likeminded people, and they blame the audience when their words don't hit their marks. This mindset is so prevalent that the exclamation "Tough crowd!" has become something of a cliche. It's true that some crowds are "tougher" than others, but the failure to engage a particular crowd usually lies mainly with the speaker or writer. (Even when it doesn't, it's best to assume it does; assumption of failure provides a useful lesson, whereas blame deferral offers no room for growth).

Re: Writing and Speaking

#149
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I heard PG speak at PyCon last weekend, I hardly even noticed any 'ums' - in fact, it wasn't until I saw it raised on HN that I remembered it. I was thoroughly engaged in his ideas, and my mind likely used those pauses to process what he was saying.

The weird thing is, I've now started to notice the ums myself. I was talking to the founders at the last tuesday dinner and suddenly started catching myself every time I did it. I found that if I made a conscious effort to, I could suppress them. But when I was talking about something interesting, I'd forget and start umming again.

Just trim the length of the ums and nobody notices them anymore. Fund a startup that can do um-filtering (speaking through a microphone) on the fly, problem solved. :)

You are in great company, just watched a couple of videos of Elon Musk and Donald Knuth. They are also expert um'ers but everyone keeps listening because the message they are broadcasting is interesting.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#150
I like how there was an extremely long silence, and then suddenly there was one little talk, which had to be posted online, and then that talk mentioned another idea which had to be posted online, and during that talk you said "um" too much, which required another post online. I like it because it almost makes me think that you're next going to blog about how you are blogging too much and really need to stop blogging. :P

To be fair, I think we also got 3 updates in January? So I imagine it's more a function of available time than momentum.

Post reply on HN