I've noticed that audiences laugh a lot and that most of what they laugh at is actually not very funny. Most people wouldn't normally laugh at the same things, unless they were really nervous. No doubt social proof is a big part of this: people laugh because others are laughing, as the essay says. Audiences are their own laugh track. But something has to start the ball rolling. I wonder if it's related to authority. The speaker is in an authoritative position, the audience is subordinate. One thing I learned from hypnosis is that most of us are a lot more ready to submit to authority than we seem - far more than we believe we are. If the speaker is known to be famous or powerful, the audience will automatically project this on to them; but even if they aren't, all they have to do is just assume a manner of authority and the audience will automatically project it onto them anyway. Then just about anything they say that is jovial will seem funny and the audience will laugh. And I bet if an audience laughs a few times, they go away saying "that was a good talk".
Writing and Speaking
31–40 of 240 posts
Re: Writing and Speaking
#32PG, since you publish your "talks" as essays anyway, why don't you use your talks to tell interesting stories (from YC or other times of your life)? As you already pointed out, it's better for the audience too to read your essays and think carefully about the ideas, rather than react in a linear fashion with the rest of the crowd.
Stories, on the other hand, like "How YC started" would be much more engaging to hear from you than read. The content of the stories should be interesting enough ("Never a dull moment?"), so that you don't have to make any extra effort to seem interesting.
Re: Writing and Speaking
#33Speaking 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.
"Speaking is not about information transmission. Speaking is to make people do something."
I couldn't have put it more succinctly myself.
Motivation is speech's primary function. Getting you to vote, or buy something, or work harder, or learn something. Everyone who is trying to get a group of people to do something is using speeches at some point.
Re: Writing and Speaking
#34It'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.
Well then he should have said that and not tried to argue that people who can speak cannot think!
Re: Writing and Speaking
#35I agree with most of it. But it seems he is implying that learning to become a better speaker is linearly proportional, even inversely proportional to improving your ideas or your writing. I agree you probably make a better use of your time improving your ideas rather than your speech. But don't you think there are diminishing returns to how efficient use of time it's to improve ideas vs speech? Isn't there a point, after which, your idea is already good enough. That it's more efficient to spend time improving your speech instead of your ideas?
I believe so. And sometimes I think, maybe, pg crossed that line.
Re: Writing and Speaking
#36I totally agree with this essay, esp. in regard to ideas that are 'new' and are still being dynamically formulated.
There is an opportunity cost associated with different 'top ideas' or perhaps in this case 'top attitudes' in one's mind. If one's interest is in delivering a great speech, that does impugn upon great thinking.
However, the key is just don't give talks on ideas that are too fresh (unless you plan on using the feedback and dialogic nature of talks to your advantage -- but that's less 'talks' and more 'conversations' or Socratic dialogues, etc.). If the goal is to deliver a great speech, you have to have an idea that is fixed so that you can spend your energy applying it to the audience's situation.
Yes, in rare situations one can do both (dynamically eval and dynamically apply), but they are somewhat overlapping, competing tasks.
ETA. One more quick thought -- making this a long post:
I think a lot of public speaking is giving the audience opportunities to 'latch on' to what one is saying. And it's easiest to do this by repeating yourself in various different ways that may interest the listener (different listeners latch on based on different shared life experiences, etc.).
Essay writing is similar. But in that form, you give the reader an opportunity to pause at any time and re-read or just think about the material. This advantage in turn means that less repetition (however artfully enhanced in speech) is required.
People are also better at skimming to what they think is important in essays. So they will skim over structural 'ums' (style that they don't find helpfully repetitive). Whereas, in speech an audience will tend to latch onto whatever is repeated.
Hence, if you choose behavior that focuses on formulation of thoughts repetitively in waves, extemporaneously speaking is more natural. If you choose behavior that insists on sifting towards the truth (and I've seen that recording of PG writing an essay), then written words can be more natural. Everyone can do both with practice, but they are different I think.
It's incorrect to say one is more 'truthful' than the other. In aggregate, knowledge among #'s of people in the universe can be about the same with both (e.g., great speaking brings a lot of people a little bit forwards; great essay writing and thinking can bring a more limited set a little more forward -- but the total area may be the same at the end of the day... -- note, these are generalized examples based on a perceived average type of speech and average type of essay).
Re: Writing and Speaking
#37An opinion by Nassim Taleb on the subject (posted on his facebook page): "I have been told by conference organizers and other rationalistic, empirically challenged fellows that one needs to be clear, deliver a crisp message, maybe even dance on the stage to get the attention of the crowd. Or speak with the fake articulations of T.V. announcers. Charlatans try sending authors to “speech school”. None of that. I find i…
One of my favourite perks when I worked at the Guardian is that any employee can go along to the morning editorial meetings. They were absolutely fascinating - a 40 minute meeting where the editorial direction for the day's newspaper is fleshed out, by an extremely smart and well informed group of people, with absolutely nothing dumbed down. One of the thing that really struck me about those meetings was how Alan Rus…
I call this the "Godfather" demeanor. It's common among powerful males. I once read an article about a big gang leader in prison and the writer noticed that he had to lean forward to hear what the leader was saying.
They will talk very quietly and unclearly without regard to whether you can hear them or not. When the room is silent and everybody is listening intently, you can't help but think that what they have to say is very important. More so than if they were to speak loudly and solicitously.
It's interesting that Talib is consciously advocating this affectation.
I guess there is a certain kind of leader who gains credibility through actions rather than speech. Some leaders try to rouse you through speech -- e.g. Barack Obama definitely leans on his oratorial skills. Others do the opposite -- Larry Page for example. He mumbles, and he doesn't care to repeat himself. It's everyone else's job to figure out what he's saying.
Re: Writing and Speaking
#38I enjoy getting up in front of a crowd of people and helping them learn new concepts in an entertaining fashion. I have taught classes, delivered presentations, recorded video podcasts with millions of views, traveled as a motivational speaker, and performed standup comedy all over the U.S.
What I like about speaking that you don't get from writing:
1) Seeing people's reaction in near real-time. This is a good feedback loop when you're working on how to explain a new product or feature before producing an on-demand recording that could be viewed by 1000x the people in the audience. It's like a focus-group or a series of live A/B tests.
2) A chance to convert the less-dedicated into customers/fans/subscribers. It seems a lot of people are too lazy to read long articles let alone books these days. A good video can go a long way. I watched a lecture by Eric Ries and immediately acquired The Lean Startup for my Kindle.
I think speaking is a great way to get people excited about a topic and teach them a handful of concepts. If my talk is successful, I will have inspired many to drill in on the topic later or become a fan of my product, my podcast, or my standup comedy. I always try to accompany my talks with easy-to-remember URLs or QR codes so that it minimizes the friction between their interest for more information and taking the next step.
Re: Writing and Speaking
#39It'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…
You seem to be attributing to me a lot of beliefs I don't hold.
Can you give examples of any specific sentences or passages I wrote that you believe to be false?
Re: Writing and Speaking
#40I've learned that there is a difference between being a good speaker and being a polished speaker. PG isn't very polished - there are tons of uhms and some inherent awkwardness to his talks, but I still consider him a very good speaker. With his awkwardness on stage comes some natural sense of charisma. The audience laughs, feels engaged, and is glued to the speaker wondering with anticipation what he's going to say next. At the end, everybody is very happy for having heard the talk, and I don't think anyone ever feels bored during it.
I expect with a few lessons it would be fairly easy to add polish to those talks if it becomes necessary (e.g. running for office, etc.)