Thursday, October 19, 2017

F Minus cartoons about public speaking, listening, debates, and open body language


I enjoy reading Tony Carrillo’s single-panel F Minus cartoons. Today’s was about how someone got started:

“When I gave my first lecture on personal responsibility through the closed door of my teenager’s bedroom, I never imagined it would become a national tour.”

 On October 17th his subject was hearing versus listening, on October 13th it was biting in a debate, and on October 11th it was overly open body language.  

On September 26th it was about a prom date ready to make a dramatic entrance.


Sunday, October 15, 2017

Ask your speech audience to write their questions down on note cards


















The Toastmasters International guide for trainers, TRAINING BASICS Getting it right, Making it Work, discusses dealing with difficult participants including The Silent Type, The Talker, and The Interrupter.

 At the Faculty Focus website there was an excellent article by Professor Meriah L. Crawford on October 13, 2017 titled A Simple Trick for Getting Students to Ask Questions in Class. She described getting a magic increase in feedback from passing out note cards and asking students to just write down their questions. If there are multiple questions, you can shuffle the cards to keep the responders anonymous. When there are multiple questions on the same topic, you can combine them. Written questions can draw out The Silent Type.     

This strategy also will work for speeches. Getting the questions in writing will help them be more organized, and shut down The Interrupter (a long-winded audience member who just wants to hear themselves talk). 

Professor Crawford also suggested that for large audiences you could ask for questions online (perhaps at Twitter).

The image of note cards came from openclipart.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

What do the most Americans fear? The fourth Chapman Survey on American Fears, and being innumerate
























It is almost Halloween, and thus time for folks to scare us with surveys about fears. On October 11th Chapman University released results from their fourth Chapman Survey on American Fears with a press release mistitled What do Americans fear most? and a blog post titled America’s Top Fears 2017. Their overall web page provided a link to an Acrobat .pdf file with details for the survey methodology and results.  

A commercial polling firm, SSRS, surveyed 1207 American adults from June 28 to July 7, 2017. In their main survey each was asked around eighty questions with the general form:

“How afraid are you of the following…:”

and replies of

“Blank (skipped answering this question)

Very Afraid

Afraid

Slightly Afraid

Not Afraid”

Data processed by the university for the blog post apparently was blank corrected (rescaled) to correct their results in percent by multiplying by a factor of (100/(100 – Blank percent). The list of fears in the blog post reportedly was ranked by the sum of the percentages for Very Afraid and Afraid. So they actually reported what most Americans fear and NOT what Americans fear most. (You actually can calculate the latter as a Fear Score, as I have previously blogged about back in 2015).    

When I compared the list of fears in the blog post with percentage results in the .pdf file, I found lots of discrepancies larger than what could be explained as rounding errors. Fifteen of them were for items where there is no blank correction, so they must just be incorrect sums. Others had more complicated problems. The worst discrepancy was for Cyber-terrorism which was listed as 39.1% and ranked nineteenth but really was 47.9% and should have been ranked ninth. So, not even their Top Ten list was correct! The word to describe this sort of nonsense is innumerate, which the Oxford Dictionaries defines as:

“without a basic knowledge of mathematics and arithmetic”

There actually also were 81 fears rather than the 80 shown in the blog post, and that 81st fittingly was that of Being fooled by ‘fake’ news.

Here is my corrected ranked listing of all the fears, with the Chapman rankings shown second in curved brackets {} and the page number, question number, [blank corrected sum], (sum), and sum reported in the Chapman blog post :

1. {1} Corrupt Government Officials p79 q29c [74.1%] (73.8%) 74.5%
2. {2} American Healthcare Act/Trumpcare p79 q29e [55.7%] (55.4%) 55.3%
3. {3} Pollution of Oceans, Rivers, and Lakes p52 q13c [54.0%] (54.0%) 53.1%
4. {4} Pollution of Drinking Water p52 q13b [52.6%] (52.5%) 50.4%
5. {5} Not having enough money for the future p53 q14a [51.4%] (51.3%) 50.2%
6. {6} High Medical Bills p53 q14c [49.2%] (49.2%) 48.4%
7. {7} The US will be involved in another World War p62 q22n [48.6%] (48.3%) 48.4%
8. {9} North Korea using nuclear weapons p63 q22s [48.3%] (48.3%) 47.5%
9. {19} Cyber-Terrorism p58 q21c [47.9%] (47.8%) 39.1%
10. {8} Global Warming & Climate Change p53 q13f [46.8%] (46.7%) 48.0%
11. {12} Extinction of plant and animal species p52 q13d [45.9%] (45.9%) 43.5%
12. {10} Air Pollution p51 q13a [45.3%] (45.3%) 44.9%
13. {15} Biological Warfare p63 q22q [45.3%] (45.3%) 41.8%
14. {11} Economic/Financial Collapse p61 q22k [44.7%] (44.5%) 44.4%
15. {14} Identity Theft p72 q25o [44.6%] (44.5%) 41.9%       
16. {13} Terrorist Attack p63 q22r [44.1%] (44.0%) 43.3%
17. {17} People I love dying p51 q12d [42.1%] (42.1%) 39.7%
18. {16} Credit Card Fraud p72 q25p [41.9%] (41.7%) 40.3%
19. {18} People I love becoming seriously ill p51 q12b [41.4%] (41.4%) 39.1%
20. {21} Nuclear Weapons attack p61 q22i [41.3%] (41.3%) 39.0%
21. {20} Widespread civil unrest p62 q22m [41.1%] (40.9%) 39.1%
22. {23} Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition p79 q29d [40.9%] (40.7%) 38.6%
23. {22} Terrorism p73 q25r [40.2%] (40.0%) 38.8%
24. {26} Oil spills p52 q13e [39.0%] (39.0%) 36.2%
25. {24} Government tracking of personal data p59 q21e [38.2%] (38.0%) 37.4%
26. {28} Being hit by a drunk driver p69 q25e [37.8%] 37.8%) 35.5%
27. {27} The collapse of the electrical grid p61 q22h [37.4%] (37.3%) 35.7%
28. {25} Corporate tracking of personal data p58 q21d [36.6%] (36.5%) 36.7%
29. {30} Pandemic or a major epidemic p62 q22l [35.9%] (35.8%) 32.8%
30. {29} The Affordable Care Act/Obamacare p78 q29b [35.4%] (35.3%) 33.9%
31. {32} Nuclear accident/meltdown p61 q22j [32.6%] (32.5%) 30.3%
32. {31} Being unemployed p53 q14b [31.9%] (31.9%) 30.7%
33. {35} Random/mass shooting p71 q25j [30.8%] (30.8%) 28.1%
34. {36} Government use of drones within the US p78 q29a [30.6%] (30.5%) 27.2%
35. {34} Heights p66 q23l [30.0%] (29.9%) 28.2%
36. {33} Losing my data, photos, or other important documents in a disaster 
  p54 q14d [29.0%] (29.0%) 29.0%
37. {38} Break-ins p71 q25k [28.4%] (28.3%) 26.2%
38. {40} Theft of property p71 q25l [28.4%] (28.4%) 25.4%
39. {42} Computers replacing people in the workforce p58 q21a [28.0%] (27.9%) 25.3%
40. {37} Devastating drought p60 q22f [27.9%] (27.8%) 26.6%
41. {43} Devastating tornado p58 q22c [27.6%] (27.6%) 24.3%
42. {39} Becoming seriously ill p50 q12a [26.9%] (26.8%) 25.7%
43. {41} Sharks p65 q23f [26.1%] (26.0%) 25.4%
44. {45} Devastating earthquake p59 q22a [24.8%] (24.8%) 22.6%
45. {47} Racial/hate crime p70 q25i [24.6%] (24.6%) 20.9%
46. {57} Gang violence p71 q25m [24.0%] (24.0%) 19.4%
47. {44} Reptiles (snakes, lizards, etc.) p64 q23d [23.9%] (23.9%) 23.6%
48. {51} Financial fraud p72 q25q [23.4%] (23.4%) 20.0%
49. {46} Devastating hurricane p59 q22b [23.3%] (23.3%) 21.4%
50. {59} Police brutality p70 q25f [23.3%] (23.3%) 18.4%
51. {52} Public speaking p67 q23m [23.3%] (23.3%) 20.0%
52. {50} Insects/arachnids p64 q23c [23.2%] (23.2%) 20.3%
53. {53} Devastating flood p60 q22d [23.0%] (23.0%) 19.8%
54. {60} Murder by a stranger p69 q25c [22.1%] (22.1%) 18.3%
55. {54} Mugging p68 q25a [22.0%] (21.9%) 19.5%
56. {58} Sexual assault by a stranger p70 q25g [21.9%] (21.8%) 19.0%
57. {48} Dying p51 q12c [21.6%] (21.6%) 20.3%
58. {49} Illegal immigration p63 q22p [21.1%] (21.1%) 20.3%
59. {55} Small enclosed spaces p67 q23n [20.9%] (20.9%) 19.8%
60. {56} Walking alone at night p57 q20b [20.2%] (20,2%) 19.8%
61. {61} Deep lakes and oceans p66 q23i [20.1%] (20.1%) 18.2%
62. {62} Abduction/kidnapping p72 q25n [18.9%] (18.9%) 15.5%
63. {65} Stalking p69 q25b [17.8%] (17.7%) 14.1%
64. {63} Devastating blizzard/winter storm p60 q22e [17.6%] (17.6%) 15.2%
65. {--}Being fooled by ‘fake’ news p57 q20d  [16.4%] (16.4%) ---
66. {66} Sexual assault by someone you know p70 q25h [15.6%] (15.6%) 12.4%
67. {67} Murder by someone you know p69 q25d [14.9%] (14.9%) 11.6%
68. {64} Technology I don’t understand p58 q21b [14.8%] (14.8%) 14.9%
69. {70} Large volcanic eruption p60 q22g [14.2%] (14.2%) 10.6%
70. {72} Flying p66 q23j [12.7%] (12.7%) 9.5%
71. {68} Germs p65 q23h [12.7%] (12.7%) 11.5%
72. {71} Needles p62 q23b [12.5%] (12.5%) 10.4%
73. {69} Whites no longer being the majority in the US p62 q22o [10.8%] (10.8%) 10.7%
74. {73} Strangers p67 q23p [9.8%] (9.8%) 8.4%
75. {75} Significant other cheating on you p57 q20a [9.2%] (9.2%) 7.5%
76. {76} Clowns p65 q23g [8.0%] (7.7%) 6.7%
77. {74} Others talking about you behind your back p57 q20c [7.2%] (7.2%) 7.5%
78. {78} Zombies p67 q23o [6.7%] (6.7%) 5.3%
79. {77} Blood p65 q23a [6.4%] (6.4%) 5.5%
80. {79} Ghosts p66 q23k [5.6%] (5.6%) 4.3%
81. {80}Animals (dogs, rats, etc.) p65 q23e [4.1%] (4.1%) 3.7%

Note that fear of public speaking came in around fiftieth, far from the silly usual claims that it is the number one or greatest fear. You won’t be hearing many speaking coaches quote that result for marketing purposes!

The image was adapted from this one at openclipart.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s October 4th Conservative Party conference speech became a media train wreck














On October 4th, in Manchester, Theresa May spoke for about an hour. She had a coughing fit, drank lots of water, and was handed a throat lozenge by Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond. Then she joked I hope you’ll notice the chancellor giving away something for free. Her coughing might have happened to anyone. But other things also went wrong, and were gleefully reported by media.

Frank Langfitt at NPR reported Britain’s Theresa May had to give a major speech. It didn’t go well. James Masters at CNN reported Theresa May’s nightmare speech: a prankster, a lost voice and a stage-set fail. Stephen Castle at the New York Times reported Theresa May, coughing and caught by a prankster, endures a speech to forget.

About halfway through her speech comedian and serial gate-crasher Simon Brodkin strode up to the lectern and handed her a phony P45 form (shown in the New York Times article). That’s the equivalent of a pink slip. The space for gender had been expanded, and listed MALE, FEMALE, and ROBOT - which was checked. (Last year John Crace at the Gurdian had christened her the Maybot). Under Reason for Termination it listed NEITHER STRONG NOR STABLE, and WE’RE A BIT WORRIED ABOUT JEZZA (slang for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn). When she recovered from the security lapse, Theresa joked that she’d like to give Jeremy a P45.




















Both the lectern and backdrop behind her had the slogan BUILDING A COUNTRY THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE. As shown above, the left and right letters in the bottom line on the backdrop fell off during her speech.

BBC’s Newsnight had a 5-1/2 minute YouTube video with excerpts, and you can also view the whole thing at Orion Prime.

The next day Ragan’s PR Daily had an article titled Fixing speaking disasters on the fly: Lessons from Britain’s PM. So, when you have a day full of worst moments, you can serve as a bad example for others to avoid.

The train wreck image came from a 110-year old Casualty Company of America ad at the Library of Congress.

Monday, October 9, 2017

It must be true, since I read it in a book



























I recently got a four DVD plus hard-cover book set titled The Everyday Gourmet: Rediscovering the Lost Art of Cooking from my friendly local public library. It was written by chef Bill Briwa (from the Culinary Institute of America), and published in 2012 by The Great Courses. Lesson 12, Herbs and Spices – Flavor on Demand begins on page 83 with a very curious discussion of salt (my italics added):

“Kosher salt is a very pure salt. Because it is ground coarsely, nothing needs to be added to it to make it flow freely or keep it from caking up. Iodized salt, on the other hand, is ground a little bit more finely than kosher salt. Iodine is added to salt to keep it from caking up or to keep it flowing freely. There is also a flavor that is associated with iodine, so iodized salt is not as true a flavor as kosher salt.”
But that is utter nonsense. A quick glance on the side of a Morton Iodized Salt container reveals that the ingredients are:
“Salt, Calcium Silicate (An Anticaking Agent), Dextrose, Potassium Iodide.”
The Salt Institute has a web page on Iodized Salt, and there also is a Wikipedia page on Iodised Salt. Both discuss how iodine instead is added to counter iodine deficiency.
There is another Wikipedia page on Anticaking agent which lists a variety of additives for preventing the formation of lumps in powders. Of course, potassium iodide is not on that list. Recalling high school chemistry and the Periodic Table, you would expect potassium iodide and sodium chloride to behave similarly. And the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service document on Potassium Iodide says it tends to absorb moisture from the air (is hygroscopic):
“Potassium iodide is stable in dry air but slightly hygroscopic in moist air. “     
An image of Abraham Lincoln studying a book was adapted from the Library of Congress.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

What you write is not finished until you have proofread it




















Being professional means that you produce documents that don’t contain typograsphical or grammar errors. That includes brief ones like posters, blog posts, slides, or other visual aids.



























The presidential inauguration poster for Donald J. Trump initially contained an error, as shown above. The first sentence said: “No dream is too big, no challenge is to (sic) great.”
















It could have been even worse, with a shredding challenge. Spelling or grammar checking software built into programs like Microsoft Word won’t catch everything. A single-page document from California State University describes 14 Proofreader’s “Tricks” you can use.

Lately Jane Genova hasn’t been proofreading some of her blog posts. I’ve added my corrections in [brackets] to three. She’s one of my favorite sources for bad examples:


“For example, Daily Mail TV, which is new this fall, had Nancy Grace ranting about how a witness had not be [been] called to testify in that infamous double murder trial a lifetime ago.”

“On [One] role he can take on is that of imprisoned Watergate lawyer Chuck Colson.” 


“That could [be] homicide, suicide or both.” 
 
ALIVE! -We Woke Up, Had Coffee from October 2, 2017:

“In the days of Queen Victoria, limited medical science and place [palace] intrigue usually meant early deaths.”

Monday, October 2, 2017

Will reducing Idaho’s state income tax rate raise our Family Prosperity Index?


Probably not. That’s just wishful thinking by a conservative blowhard. In an article on September 1, 2017 titled Following Trump’s speech, time for federal and state tax relief Idaho Freedom Foundation president Wayne Hoffman predictably called for a lower state income tax rate. That article also was printed as an editorial in the Idaho Press-Tribune. He did not give a number, but perhaps would settle for half the current top rate of 7.4% (3.7%) or a nice round one like 3%.  

Wayne said: 

“….Idaho is plagued by the highest income taxes in the intermountain region, with its top marginal rate of 7.4 percent. Further, that top rate is not reserved for the wealthy: It kicks in at just about $11,000, meaning a youngster earning minimum wage at a burger shop, such as my 17-year-old son, is in the state’s top tax bracket. It’s the punchline of a not-so-funny joke I often tell in describing Idaho’s wayward tax policies.

High tax burdens are, unquestionably, holding our state back. On the American Conservative Union’s Family Prosperity Index, which measures the well-being of families in individual states, Idaho performs fairly well, coming at a No. 3 in the latest survey. Idaho should hold that top spot, but the state’s confiscatory taxes continue to hurt our ranking.”

I’d say instead that Idaho did extremely well by ranking third. There is a two-minute YouTube video about the Family Prosperity Index (FPI). There is a very detailed 152-page report about the 2017 Family Prosperity Index.

Wayne also had mentioned our highest income tax ranking in a previous article on September 25, 2015 titled Tax law rewrite should be open to the public. I discussed it in a blog post on October 5, 2015 titled Using graphics to see an argument more clearly






















As is shown above, the census bureau defines the Intermountain region to consist of six states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah. But it’s not that useful, since it only includes two of our six neighboring states - our southern ones Nevada and Utah. Anyhow, let us look at how those Intermountain states rank on the (Family Prosperity Index) and also list their [Income tax rate], and {Sales tax rate}. Income tax rates and sales tax rates for 2017 both came from the Tax Foundation web site. They are:

Utah                  (7.24), [5.0%],   {5.95%}
Idaho                 (6.23), [7.4%],   {6.0%}
Colorado           (5.93), [4.63%], {2.9%}
Nevada             (4.46), [0.0%],   {6.85%}
Arizona             (4.42), [4.54%], {5.6%}
New Mexico      (3.58), [4.9%],   {5.125%}

Utah had the highest Family Prosperity Index (FPI), (and North Dakota came in second (6.32), [2.9%], {5.0%}). Note that New Mexico, with the lowest FPI in this group (and the second lowest of all states), had almost the same income tax rate (and a lower sales tax rate) than Utah did. And Nevada, with no income tax at all, also ranked lower in FPI than Idaho did.  





















How about instead comparing Idaho with our six neighboring states (as shown above)? Now the FPI rankings are:

Utah              (7.24), [5.0%], {5.95%},
Idaho             (6.23), [7.4%], {6.0%},
Wyoming      (5.78),  [0.0%], {4.0%},
Washington  (5.54),  [0.0%], {6.5%},
Montana       (5.23),  [6.9%], {0.0%},
Oregon          (4.84), [9.9%], {0.0%},
Nevada          (4.46), [0.0%], {6.85%}

The average income tax rate is 4.17%, so reducing ours to 3.7% or 3.0% would make it less than average. That wouldn’t help AT ALL in competing with three (half) of our neighbors who have NO income tax.  But all three states with no income tax also ranked lower in FPI than Idaho did. And so did Oregon, with the highest income tax rate, but no sales tax. Even this sample of 1/7 of the states shows clearly they have adopted quite different strategies for getting funds to run their governments.  





















Next I tried looking at the relation between income tax rate and FPI for all fifty states. As shown above in a graph there is no obvious connection to suggest lowering tax rate would increase FPI. Like Utah, California (5.16), [13.3%], {7.25%} is an obvious outlier with its high income tax rate. Idaho has a higher FPI than all seven states which have NO income tax:

Idaho              (6.23), [7.4%], {6.0%}

South Dakota (5.94), [0.0%], {4.5%}
Texas             (5.89), [0.0%], {6.25%}
Wyoming        (5.78), [0.0%], {4.0%},
Washington    (5.54), [0.0%], {6.5%},
Alaska            (4.86), [0.0%], {0.0%}
Florida            (4.58), [0.0%], {6.0%}
Nevada          (4.46), [0.0%], {6.85%}






















As shown above, I also looked at the relation between sales tax rate and FPI for all fifty states. Again, there is no obvious connection.























Finally, as shown above, I looked at the relation between the sum of the income and sales tax rates (part of the total tax burden, ignoring property taxes) and FPI for all fifty states. States which lowered their income tax rate might be expected to compensate for that loss of revenue by raising sales tax rates. But there is no obvious connection between tax burden and FPI.

Why is there no connection? The Family Prosperity Index is very complicated. Table 1 on page 12 of the 2017 report shows there are six indexes (factors) which contribute to it: Economics, Demographics, Family Self-Sufficiency, Family Structure, Family Culture, and Family Health. And each of those factors are composed of five sub-indexes. For example, Table 2 on page 23 shows that the Economics sub index is composed of: Private Sector Share of Personal Income, Real Per Household Personal Income, Cost of Living, Entrepreneurship, and Unemployment. On page 17 of the report they note that:

“Personal income comes from two sources: the private sector and the public sector. The distinction between the two sectors is important because only the private sector creates new income. The public sector, in contrast, can only redistribute income through taxes and spending. More specifically, public sector spending consists of personal current transfer receipts (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) and government employee compensation (federal, state, and local).


This information is important because there is a significant positive correlation between per household personal income and the private sector share of personal income. Ref (1). Put simply, the larger the private sector in a particular city or state, the greater the per household personal income in that community. When examining the lower 48 states, on average, a one-percentage point decrease in the size of the private sector yields a decrease in per household income of approximately $3,300.


Of course, correlation does not equal causation; however, there are two states that allow for a very strong natural comparison to better show causation—New Hampshire and Maine. These two states are similar in many areas—geography, climate, demographics, and culture—but they diverge significantly in their approach to public policy.”

Results for those states are:
New Hampshire (5.01), [5.0%],   {0.0%}
Maine                 (4.53), [7.15%], {5.5%}






















As shown above, when we plot Real Per Household Personal Income as a function of Private Sector Share of Personal Income, there indeed is a correlation. (I have shown the data points for Hawaii [blue] and Alaska [gray] in different colors).

Let us look at the six scores for Utah and Idaho that contribute to their overall FPI rank. For Family Structure Utah ranks #1 (7.46) while Idaho is #2 (6.77). For Demographics Utah ranks #1(9.12) while Idaho is #4 (7.39). For Family Health Utah ranks #1 (6.30) while Idaho is #6 (6.07). For Family Self-Sufficiency Utah ranks #1 (7.26) while Idaho is #11 (5.59). For Family Culture Utah ranks #2 (6.39) while Idaho is #8 (6.34). For Economics Utah ranks #3 (6.92) while Idaho is #15 (5.50).

But there is no obvious correlation between FPI and state income tax rate. Wayne is dreaming!

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Tips and icebergs

















In my previous blog post on September 28, 2017 titled Alan Alda on public speaking tips and rules of three I quoted how he didn’t much like tips. I don’t either. Tips often are so vague they are  useless – not even half truths. A comical illustration is in a YouTube video clip from Monty Python’s Flying Circus showing a mythical children’s TV program called How to Do It. John Cleese describes how to play the flute:

“Well here we are. You blow there, and you move your fingers up and down here.”

That tip just is the tip of an iceberg. There’s a lot more going on underneath the water. Both parts of an iceberg (or at least Antarctic ones) have useful jargon names. Page 48 in a 2011 book by Vijay P. Singh, Pratap Singh, and K. Haritashya titled Encyclopedia of Snow, Ice and Glaciers explains:

“The floating upper side of the ice, projecting over the water is termed the ‘hummock’; while the downward projection of the ice, which is hidden beneath the seawater, is termed the ‘bummock.’ These bummocks are dangerous for ships navigating in Antarctic waters.”

On February 1, 2017 I blogged about Incomplete and useful advice about recordings of your speech rehearsals. I noted that David McGimpsey had vaguely said to:

“….If you have time, record yourself (video or audio). You’ll find areas where you need to elaborate and give additional information. You’ll also find areas you can cut.”

More detailed and useful advice came from Fred E. Miller, who said you can view the video, just listen to the sound, or view the video with the sound off (to see gestures, etc.).

At her Speak Up for Success blog Jezra Kaye lists 100 Top Public Speaking Tips, each of which is a separate post with enough detail (bummock) to be useful.

The Arctic iceberg image came from Wikimedia Commons.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Alan Alda on public speaking tips and rules of three




I have been enjoying reading Alan Alda’s new book If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face (My Adventures in the Art and Science of Relating and Communicating). I got it from my friendly local public library. In Chapter 11 he discusses tips and rules of three. Watch the 5-minute YouTube video from Big Think titled 3 Ways to express your thoughts so that everyone will understand you. Here is his text from pages 98 and 99:

TIPS



Even though I don’t much like them, I have to admit that tips can sometimes be useful. Here are a few that have been good to me.



      The Three Rules of Three


1] When I talk to an audience, I try to make no more than three points. (They can’t remember more than three, and neither can I.) In fact, restricting myself to one big point is even better. But three is the limit.



2] I try to explain difficult ideas three different ways. Some people can’t understand something the first couple of ways I say it, but can if I say it another way. This lets them triangulate their way to understanding.



3] I try to find a subtle way to make an important point three times. It sticks a little better.



But even though I’ve discovered a few tips that have helped, for my money, tips tend to be anemic when they don’t come fortified with experience, or with a vivid story that lets you enjoy a vicarious experience.



I was once asked to write a list of tips on how to communicate well, and I resisted. I finally hammered out three, but they were so snarky I never sent them in:



1}   Beware of tips. Tips are intellectual and often mechanical. They don’t transform you. An experience transforms you. There’s a stretch of road I’ve driven down many times where I used to ignore the speed limit sign. One afternoon, I got a speeding ticket and I never ignored the speed limit again. The sign was a tip. The ticket was the experience.



2}   Make a personal connection with your audience. Look them in the eye and speak to them as if they’re a close friend and not a multitude. This is, of course, impossible to do just by reading this tip, Experience is what transforms you. (See Tip 1.)



3}    If you can, experience improvisation. It will focus you on the other person. Improv games allow most of the tips about public speaking to become second nature, rather than forced and mechanical. A common tip advises you to vary the pace of your talk. Improv puts you so in touch with the audience that varying your pace happens automatically. You do it without thinking, which is the only way it will be effective. Trying to follow tips, rather than letting behavior emerge from the experience of improvisation, can actually make a talk more wooden. You see it in the pauses speakers make when they try to apply the tip to pause every few sentences. During these mechanical pauses, the air is dead. But when an improviser takes a pause, something meaningful is happening. She pauses because she’s watching the audience to see if they understand her, and she’s actually thinking of what she ought to say next. The pause is filled with something that’s happening between her and the audience. She’s alive.”

Three other videos based on the book are:


Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Alan Alda on movie jargon


Early this month I saw a September 5, 2017 post by Nick Morgan on his Public Words blog titled Alan Alda on improv, empathy, and his new book. That book is titled If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face (My Adventures in the Art and Science of Relating and Communicating). I got it from my friendly local public library, and have been enjoying reading it.

Chapter 20 is titled Jargon and the Curse of Knowledge. On pages 188 and 189 Alan says:

“There are actually some nice things to say about jargon. First, of course, we have to recognize that there probably isn’t a line of work that hasn’t developed its own jargon. If you walked onto a movie set and someone asked you to ‘go get the gobo on the Century over there, and while you’re at it bring back a half apple and a kook – and hurry up, this is the Martini shot,’ you might be a little puzzled. Among other things, you’re being asked to get a couple of things that cast shadows, The gobo casts a hard shadow and is attached to a Century stand, manufactured by the Century Company and bearing its name. The kook or cucoloris, is a board with a patterned cut-out for casting feathery shadows. A half apple is a small platform about the size of half an apple box. Cameras, lights, and height-challenged actors can be placed on them. And the Martini Shot is the last shot of the day, after which everyone goes home and has a martini.



The point of running through all this arcane etymology is that, although jargon often proceeds from misty origins, it usually has a specific and useful meaning. Sometimes one word can stand for five pages in plain English. If people in the same field share a knowledge of that meaning, they’re not going to use five pages if one word will do, and they shouldn’t be expected to. Speaking jargon to the right person can save time and also lead to fewer errors. ‘Bring me the gobo’ is probably less prone to error than ‘Bring me the black fuzzy thing over there.’



But the other person does need to define the jargon in the same way you do. I heard about a meeting in Washington where a group of nanoscientists were being brought together with a group of neuroscientists in the hope they could collaborate on new ways to study the brain. Before they could even get started, they wasted hours in a cloud of confusion because they couldn’t agree on the meaning of one word: the word probe.”
























When I looked up Apple Box on Wikipedia I found another level of movie jargon. As shown above, a full apple box is 20” wide by 12” deep by 8” high. When something in a set will be placed on an apple box, the crew needs to specify an orientation for it. The lowest height (8”) sometimes is called LA, the middle height (12”) is called Texas (or Chicago), and the tallest (skyscraper) height (20”) is called New York. But there are regional variations, so they might also be called Queens/Brooklyn/Manhattan.    























The word gobo has two other meanings along with the one Alan mentioned. A related one, shown above, is a movable partition used in a recording studio for blocking sound (rather than light).



























But in an Oriental grocery store gobo means a vegetable - burdock root (Articum lappa), as shown above.

From May 31, 2017 there is a 7-1/2 minute YouTube Video in which Alan discusses Good communication 101: Mirroring, Jargon, Highfaluting Words.

Images of an apple box, a sound gobo, and a burdock root came from Wikimedia Commons.