Dick Cavett on improving your speeches
When I wrote the post below I swear I had not read this New York Times piece (Candidate, Improve Your Appearance!), but something must be in the air. A kind PZ reader tipped me off to this wonderful New York Times article by one of my favorite television presenters, Dick Cavett. Cavett's article is fantastic with some good concrete advice from someone who knows what he's talking about. I recommend the article — and if you have time — the 200 comments have some real nuggets in there as well. Good stuff. In case you are too busy, here are some bullet points (notes and quotes) I gleaned from Dick Cavett's article:
• Teleprompters, says Cavett, "are supposed to create the illusion that you are not reading. And they do, when skillfully used." (If you can't use them skillfully, might reading from notes be better, more honest?).
• John McCain is fine speaking off-the-cuff, but has real problems reading a speech. Obama is good at both (and Clinton is good too). But all three are better than the current US president, says Cavvett:
"...everybody does it better than the capering loon who does soft-shoe in the White House.... His speechifying has a strong odor of remedial reading about it, combined with an apparent fear that there might be some hard words ahead."
• Ronald Reagan had the art of the speech down.
• "Politicians, if smart, would hire not just a comedy writer but an acting coach."
• Tip #1 "Change all 'I wills' and 'I shalls' to “I’ll’; Also, 'I haves' and 'I ams' to 'I’ve' and 'I’m,' etc." (That is, speak in a human voice, conversational, natural.)
• Tip #2 "Pretend you are speaking to one person. One single person. Because that’s what everybody is." (Again, conversational, natural, real.)
• Tip #3 "Grab a bunch of words off the prompter and, instead of staring straight ahead, glance down and to one side as you do — in real life — when thinking just what to say next. Then look back and deliver those snatched-up words to the camera." (This tip makes you seem more natural and connected to the audience.)
Go read the entire article.
Keeping it real in Q&A
While reading the comments section, I found a few people who suggested Obama was indeed good at reading speeches, but that his off-the-cuff speeches and his Q&A discussions with large audiences lack clarity and substance and are simply filled with platitudes. I have not found that to be the case. Recently another PZ reader sent me this link which shows Obama in Oregon doing a good job live when asked to explain "in a nut shell" the difference between himself and Clinton. At five minutes it is not a short answer, but it seemed clear to me. What I liked is that he did not put his opponent down and admitted on some issues there was not a big difference between them, but then he showed where the difference are. You decide for yourself how lucid his answer was (Watch it).
I don't give many formal speeches, but when I do, I don't prepare a script to be read word for word. Instead, I think clearly beforehand about what I want to say and write down a few ideas with key words or an illustration that reminds me of my points as the short talk unfolds (and this card is not seen by the audience). It's possible to memorize a speech, but memorized speeches almost always sound artificial and somehow disconnected unless you are an extremely skilled speaker (and have loads of time for memorizing pages of text). Since memorization is so arduous and risky, many executives and politicians elect to read their speech in some fashion. Who can blame them? 
For the past twenty years or so many software companies have oversold "quick & easy" design, just as late-night TV informercials today oversell the idea of losing weight without having to workout or change your lifestyle. Why use your brain (or work hard)? — just follow our easy template for success, they say. Now, I am not suggesting that software templates are by their nature bad things. They can be very useful. But a template without knowledge and understanding can also be a dangerous thing. In the world of software apps such as presentation tools, we often rely too much on templates and shortcuts. Instead, we should spend more time in our professional development exploring and understanding deeply the art of design in all its myriad forms before we even turn on the computer. As technology gets more advanced and more complex, much of it actually gets easier to use, yet most of the discussion is still on tips and tricks of using the features of the tool itself. What's needed — now more then ever — is better content creation, better stories, greater creativity, and the ability to think and apply a deeper knowledge of both the art and science of visual design.
Type is a wonderful thing. And while I don't recommend that we all become professional typographers, it is in our interest to deepen our knowledge and understanding of the rich art of typography. Printing with letterpress or movable type in the West goes back to at least the 1400s (the Chinese were doing it even before that with woodblock printing). The history is deep and wide, yet most people only have a cursory understanding of typefaces or fonts. It's possible to learn much about the power of typography with a computer and books—and most importantly—a good instructor. But can we benefit in the here and now by looking to the past and even using tools of the past to get a good grounding in design and type? If you could study type while learning to produce good work with a letterpress, would it make a difference? The video below called 
The tools of today are fantastic. No one is suggesting we abandon them and return to the past. But we need to learn from the past traditions and the proven rules of the art as well. And learning the art with the tools of the past, with all the constraints they impose, can be an enlightening, educational experience. Today, when people say "you have to know how to use the tool" too often they mean the features of the software. Using software features is important too, but these tools are ever-changing, ephemeral ones. What is much slower to change and far more grounded is the actual art itself. Here are a couple of good books to help you learn about type. These are not the only ones, but one of these will get you started.
And speaking of India, in this presentation that 
Checkout the Slideshare blog too—you'll see a guest post there on 
This summer I will be traveling the globe a bit giving presentations and workshops. The summer schedule is still being put together now, but here's what I know: I'll be in New Zealand for about 10 days doing workshops that are open to the public in late June for 
Marketing guru 
(Sorry, you can skip this part if you like; a bit off topic.) My mother had a massive stroke in 1996, a blood clot that cut off blood supply to almost her entire left hemisphere. It was devastating. She would never again be able to speak (except for yes and no) or read and write or do even simple math. On the day of her stroke, I flew immediately to Portland, Oregon from Japan to meet my brothers by her bedside. I spent most of the first three days sitting beside her bed. She was conscious but virtually unresponsive. I didn't know if it would help, but I held her hand and talked to her anyway during the few times she was awake. Seeing Dr. Taylor's talk gave me some insights into what must have been happening with my mother in those early days and weeks after the stroke. Since my mother never regained speech (though she got language recognition back), she has never been able to tell us about her experience and recovery. However, Dr. Taylor's presentation was illuminating. My mother lost movement in her right side and lost most of her "left brain." But something funny has played out over the past eleven years: her so-called right-brain aptitudes seem to have become stronger. She was always a kind woman and well liked, but now she seems even more so. She communicates brilliantly with her smile and her eyes. Although she can not speak, healthcare workers and medical staff always remark how sweet she is, how funny, etc. In 1996 I thought I lost my mother, but what I have found is that—in spite of her loss of (spoken) language production—her personality today is actually an amplification of what it was before. I did not lose my mother at all. If the stroke would have been in the right hemisphere, language production may have remained, but I am not sure if I would recognize her. 
The thing that kept me going on the 
Slides and other forms of multimedia are not appropriate in every case. In the case of many leadership speeches, for example, we want to see the man (or woman) and be informed and inspired by their words and perhaps even moved by their presence. Images on a screen? Perhaps. But in many of the great speeches of our time the images are painted with the speaker's words. Bullet point slides? You've got to be kidding. To illustrate the point of just how absurd bullets can sometimes be, imagine how much "different" (i.e., totally ineffective) it would have been if you listened to Obama's now famous "Yes We Can" speech against a backdrop of really bad PowerPoint slides. If bad slides can take some of the impact off even this kind of speech, imagine what wordy slides could do to your ability to connect with an audience. 
The slide deck above is from 
