7 ms·

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

by edw519 15y ago

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 comedy clubs because so many people howl at stuff I think is lame. On the other hand, I find tech talks that would bore my friends to death incredibly interesting. I've seen pg speak several times and I really enjoyed his talks. I even like the "ums". They tell my subconscious to pay attention because I'm being treated to something real-time and genuine that has never happened before and may never happen again. Oddly, my favorite tech speaker in the past few years was Reid Hoffman. He sure doesn't look like a professional speaker; he paced back and forth and mumbled with his head down. But I was afraid that if I dropped my pencil, I might miss something that could change my life. Now that's what I call a good speaker.

jonstjohn 15y ago
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.
- ohashi 15y ago
  I saw pg speak at YCNYC and I definitely noticed a lot of 'ums.' At first it was very surprising to me to hear someone who I've read nearly all of their essays speak so 'poorly.' The odd thing, looking back, I remember the content quite well compared to a lot of other 'good' speeches I've gone to in the past. I remember vague notions about some of them, don't remember anything about most. YCNYC was about new york as a hub and some of the factors that differentiate the two and why things are they way they are.
- pg 15y ago
  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.
  - tlammens 15y ago
    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.
  - mechanical_fish 15y ago
    I believe I've heard of linguistic studies which demonstrate that the use of "filler" words like um is, in part, a form of "code switching". For example, when teenagers talk to their peers, or to people they don't particularly respect, their speech will tend to be peppered with ums and you knows and likes [1], as in: "I'd, um, you know, prefer to watch something, like, interesting.". But when talking to respected elders, or working as waitstaff in a restaurant, the same people suddenly prove capable of uttering perfectly fine sentences in formal English. The "reversion" to the broken-up speech pattern is not necessarily because the speakers are thinking too hard, or drinking too hard, and it's certainly not because they don't know how to speak: It's often a subconscious but deliberate technique for setting an informal mood. Some languages actually have a syntactically-distinct informal mode; English has the word um. Why do I tell this random anecdote? The usual reason: I love to ramble. But also because my point is: Stop worrying about the "ums". They're fine. Your listeners were probably already interpreting them as a sign that you've become really engaged in the conversation. (Now, of course, the above comment will be added to the YC FAQ, and teams will be competing to see how quickly they can get PG to utter the first um of the entrance interview. ;) --- [1] At least, this is what informal teen speech sounded like years ago. These days, it may be different. It usually is.
sks 15y ago
I work in an academic setting and most of us use writing to convey our ideas and use the speaking opportunity to advertise the things we have written about. So a good academic speech needs to have low idea density to serve its purpose. It should only present the core ideas to get the audience interested in reading what you have written. I am sure if pg starts to see his speeches performing a different function than the writings he will enjoy the speaking assignments more.
jonnathanson 15y ago
"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).
- Spearchucker 15y ago
  Understanding the audience, as you suggest, is not, in my experience, what makes for a good speaker. I've spoken in front of audiences - large and small - more times than I can remember. Some of my talks tanked. Badly. Most go really, really well. And the difference between the tankers and the good ones is one thing - a belief in what I'm saying. It can (and often has been) an openly hostile audience (I've had people unexpectedly sit in just because I was "the guy from Microsoft", and that presented them with a rare opportunity to heckle). And most times I win those over as easily as the ones that are open to what I have to say to begin with. And it's quite simply that when you believe in your message, when you just know you're right/your approach is right/your message has integrity, that you appear authentic. And authenticity is very compelling, as a speaker.
  - 15y ago
harold 15y ago
I think one can be a great communicator without being a great speaker. True passion for a subject comes through, even if a person says "ummm" a lot. It might be harder to be a good "listener" than a good speaker when it comes right down to it.
j_baker 15y ago
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. It's worth pointing out that the first sentence is very extraverted. In fact, if you read between the lines a bit, this is a very extraverted post. That's not bad. It's just that it's always interesting to note how extraverted introverts (myself included) can be without realizing it. Vice versa for extraverts.

by edw519 15y ago

jonstjohn 15y ago

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.

ohashi 15y ago
I saw pg speak at YCNYC and I definitely noticed a lot of 'ums.' At first it was very surprising to me to hear someone who I've read nearly all of their essays speak so 'poorly.' The odd thing, looking back, I remember the content quite well compared to a lot of other 'good' speeches I've gone to in the past. I remember vague notions about some of them, don't remember anything about most. YCNYC was about new york as a hub and some of the factors that differentiate the two and why things are they way they are.
pg 15y ago
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.
- tlammens 15y ago
  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.
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  I believe I've heard of linguistic studies which demonstrate that the use of "filler" words like um is, in part, a form of "code switching". For example, when teenagers talk to their peers, or to people they don't particularly respect, their speech will tend to be peppered with ums and you knows and likes [1], as in: "I'd, um, you know, prefer to watch something, like, interesting.". But when talking to respected elders, or working as waitstaff in a restaurant, the same people suddenly prove capable of uttering perfectly fine sentences in formal English. The "reversion" to the broken-up speech pattern is not necessarily because the speakers are thinking too hard, or drinking too hard, and it's certainly not because they don't know how to speak: It's often a subconscious but deliberate technique for setting an informal mood. Some languages actually have a syntactically-distinct informal mode; English has the word um. Why do I tell this random anecdote? The usual reason: I love to ramble. But also because my point is: Stop worrying about the "ums". They're fine. Your listeners were probably already interpreting them as a sign that you've become really engaged in the conversation. (Now, of course, the above comment will be added to the YC FAQ, and teams will be competing to see how quickly they can get PG to utter the first um of the entrance interview. ;) --- [1] At least, this is what informal teen speech sounded like years ago. These days, it may be different. It usually is.

sks 15y ago

I work in an academic setting and most of us use writing to convey our ideas and use the speaking opportunity to advertise the things we have written about. So a good academic speech needs to have low idea density to serve its purpose. It should only present the core ideas to get the audience interested in reading what you have written. I am sure if pg starts to see his speeches performing a different function than the writings he will enjoy the speaking assignments more.

jonnathanson 15y ago

"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).

Spearchucker 15y ago
Understanding the audience, as you suggest, is not, in my experience, what makes for a good speaker. I've spoken in front of audiences - large and small - more times than I can remember. Some of my talks tanked. Badly. Most go really, really well. And the difference between the tankers and the good ones is one thing - a belief in what I'm saying. It can (and often has been) an openly hostile audience (I've had people unexpectedly sit in just because I was "the guy from Microsoft", and that presented them with a rare opportunity to heckle). And most times I win those over as easily as the ones that are open to what I have to say to begin with. And it's quite simply that when you believe in your message, when you just know you're right/your approach is right/your message has integrity, that you appear authentic. And authenticity is very compelling, as a speaker.
- 15y ago

harold 15y ago

I think one can be a great communicator without being a great speaker. True passion for a subject comes through, even if a person says "ummm" a lot. It might be harder to be a good "listener" than a good speaker when it comes right down to it.

j_baker 15y ago

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. It's worth pointing out that the first sentence is very extraverted. In fact, if you read between the lines a bit, this is a very extraverted post. That's not bad. It's just that it's always interesting to note how extraverted introverts (myself included) can be without realizing it. Vice versa for extraverts.