3 ms·
I despise this structure and the kind of writing and presentations it tends to produce. The absolute worst, which I see all too often in presentations, is its f
by munificent 5y ago
I despise this structure and the kind of writing and presentations it tends to produce. The absolute worst, which I see all too often in presentations, is its fractal form:
1. Tell them that you are going to:
1. Tell them what you are going to tell them.
2. Tell them.
3. Tell you what you told them.
1. Tell them what you are going to tell them.
2. Tell them that now you will tell them what you will tell them.
3. Tell them.
4. Tell them that you are done telling them what you will tell them.
5. Tell them that you will tell them what you told them.
6. Tell them what you told them.
7. Tell them that you are done telling them what you told them.
A structure I like much better which permits the above structure but allows other variations is:
1. Explain how to tell if this is worth their time.
2. Tell them.
3. If there was a lot, suggest what's worth remembering.
The focus here is on how it benefits the audience and not on some arbitrary structural form.
- enobrev 5y agoIt seems you're suggesting the same strategy, and just don't like when it's done poorly.
- munificent 5y agoNot at all. There are many ways to let an audience decide whether the rest of the material is worth their time. Summarizing to give them a preview is only one (and often the least interesting one). Other ways: * Describe a problem that the audience also has, so that they understand that you are aligned with them. * Tell an engaging anecdote so that they expect it will be a rewarding experience. (The idea that a piece of writing should entertain, inform, or persuade and that those are mutually exclusive is another canard that I find to be completely toxic and antithetical to good writing. Good writing should entertain, inform, and persuade.) * Telegraph that the time investment will be smaller by getting started and making the overall thing shorter. * Describe previous failures to solve a problem. * Give them an interesting insight right off the bat, which implies there may be more to come. * Tell them something personal which conveys whether you are likely to be a person with interesting things to say. * Throw out a detailed, hard to acquire fact, which implies that you have other hard-won knowledge. Note that what all of these have in common is that the intro material is unique and is not simply a pre-statement of information they will encounter lately. Also, the fact that I made step 3 optional is significant. Most writing and presentations don't need a summary and a summary will often detract. If you want to stick in the audience's memory, what you really need is a climax, and "here's what I just said, said again" is about the most anti-climactic ending you can imagine.
- blablabla123 5y agoIt's also a trade-off between length of presentation or article in that case and amount of interesting content. Also I think Dynamical Systems are quite a mixture of theory and practical applications, so it makes sense to mix that.
- OccamsRazr 5y agoThe opening is a value proposition at its core. Attention is a commodity to be earned. Recognizing this is the key to good openings.