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

21–30 of 240 posts

Re: Writing and Speaking

#21

Post by ThomPete »

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…

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/md2/timewarp/derrida.html

Re: Writing and Speaking

#22

Post by vgm »

The following was a real eye-opener for me, as I always thought from someone's speech, you could infer how much mental horsepower they had [1]:

"

"Spontaneous eloquence seems to me a miracle," confessed Vladimir Nabokov in 1962. He took up the point more personally in his foreword to Strong Opinions (1973): "I have never delivered to my audience one scrap of information not prepared in typescript beforehand … My hemmings and hawings over the telephone cause long-distance callers to switch from their native English to pathetic French.

"At parties, if I attempt to entertain people with a good story, I have to go back to every other sentence for oral erasures and inserts … nobody should ask me to submit to an interview … It has been tried at least twice in the old days, and once a recording machine was present, and when the tape was rerun and I had finished laughing, I knew that never in my life would I repeat that sort of performance."

We sympathise. And most literary types, probably, would hope for inclusion somewhere or other on Nabokov's sliding scale: "I think like a genius, I write like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child."

"

[1] Foreword, The Quotable Hitchens.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#23

Post by beza1e1 »

Speaking is not about information transmission. Speaking is to make people do something.

For example, Steve Jobs keynotes made you go to the Apple Online Store and preorder the latest products; Bret Victor in his "Inventing on Principle" talk makes you rant about the current state of IDEs.

The effect of a talk disappears rapidly after the speaker has left the stage. In contrast, a written text stays.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#24

Post by rubidium »

PG walks around at the end of his article, but doesn't say it outright.

Giving talks is about leading. Be it rallying the staff, conveying a vision, or providing an update, the main thing is to inspire, connect, motivate and direct. Some very self-motivated people hate talks because they already have what they need in that area and would prefer just a document of instructions. Most people, however, appreciate good leadership and appreciate talks.

Talks are for implementing ideas. Conversation is for understanding and generating ideas. Writing/thinking is for generating ideas.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#25

Post by cperciva »

padobson wrote: post #15

"[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…

FWIW, as a speaker I use point-form (aka. "powerpoint", although I do them in LaTex) slides for exactly this reason -- if someone gets distracted and misses a few sentences of what I'm saying, it helps them "resynchronize" with me.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#26

Post by bitsweet »

no coincidence that so many famous speakers are described as motivational speakers. That may be what public speaking is really for

By this standard, I'd say PG is an excellent speaker regardless of any superfluous "ums". I recall back in 2006 at the first Railsconf, I was at lunch with Martin Fowler (arguably one of the best speakers in our industry who happened to be keynoting at that Railsconf) and some other co-workers. The food was was taking to long to come out so Martin Fowler left because he didn't want to miss PG speak. I had no idea who PG was but figured I shouldn't miss his talk if Fowler thought it was worth skipping lunch for.

I remember PG literally up there, head down, reading the easy (http://www.paulgraham.com/marginal.html) for his keynote. It didn't matter that the audience didn't laugh or that he was visibly uncomfortable. What mattered was how our thinking was influenced afterward. It certainly "motivated" me enough to send my life on a completely new trajectory.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#27

Post by Shenglong »

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.

Better speaking ability may not help with better ideas, but it does help with the introduction of ideas. I think most of us on HN are living in a bit of a microcosm, where people who we need to influence can objectively break down what we're trying to do.

When we need to expand our ideas to the masses, however, the focus becomes less on what the idea is, and more on how it's delivered. Preying on emotion, sequential logic, and subliminal notes, sometimes even the worst of ideas are promoted as good ideas.

In accordance with the last point of your essay, I'm not sure either, that speaking is used more for good. But if that's the case, now that we have so many people with good ideas, perhaps it's time to focus on delivering good ideas, and making the world better that way. (hmm... I just had an idea)

Re: Writing and Speaking

#28

Post by tlammens »

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.

The factor that makes ideas better (or in some cases worse) is thought, which comes with time. Speaking is very engaging at least for some people... (I notice this when I am in the car and talking to someone). It consumes a lot of attention, attention which can not be used to think about the problem. The same occurs when I have a discussion with someone. When I walk away after the discussion I get a lot of: "Oh, I forgot to say this, oh I forgot to say that", because you start direct your focus on thinking instead of talking. But I guess talking/thinking is not an "exclusive or" for some people.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#29

Post by neebz »

Never seen someone deride speaking like that.

I think one of the best things about speaking is that it allows you to emphasize the parts which are important.

The important distinction is in writing you are giving out ideas to the audience and let them decipher all. But with speaking you get this additional power using pauses, emphasis etc. to notify the audience what are the important points and wherethe whole talk/presentation is revolving around. Maybe PG's audience is very smart most of the time and he just need to float the ideas and let them measure everything.

And not to forget if the language of communication is not exactly your native language (or your not that good at it) then your writing could end up making your whole essay a pile of shit (e.g. this comment ;) )

Post reply on HN