I thought I’d do something a bit different for today’s blog post: If you’re a hardcore Beatles fan, here’s a short quiz featuring my five all-time favorite Beatles trivia questions. Good luck… and no Googling!
What is Paul McCartney’s middle name?
One single released by the Beatles in the U.S. was unique in that neither side was a Lennon/McCartney composition. What was it?
Only one Beatles song was credited as having been written by all four Beatles. What was it?
Only one Beatles song was credited as having been written by three of the four Beatles. What was it?
Which Beatles song featured only two of the Beatles doing all the vocals and playing all the instruments?
On Facebook recently, the folks who manage the TED Talks page posted an ostensible list of tips they give their speakers. In the ensuing conversation, I mentioned my own experience as a speaker and the mental list of tips I’ve complied over the years. My comment drew responses that were so encouraging I decided to share a slightly expanded version of that list here. While there are no universally applicable approaches, I can tell you that the techniques you’ll find in this list are the most effective ones I learned (mostly the hard way) over a nine year career delivering corporate presentations:
1. Have a reliable opening, one you can deliver expertly and with confidence. Early on, I “appropriated” (from someone who’s name I’ve sadly long since forgotten) a short opening quip that broke the ice with the audience and almost always got a chuckle. It scaled well and worked reliably with all sorts of different audiences. Having this opening in my toolkit de-stressed the beginning of my presentations significantly. I knew that even if no other single line in my talk connected, this one would. The little bit of connection and the confidence it produced in thirty seconds was all it ever took for me to get off to a great start.
2. Use pauses and silences strategically to grab your audience’s attention. Most speakers’ natural inclination when they want to capture their audience’s attention is to turn the volume up to eleven. In fact, it’s often much more effective to pause and let a silence hang over the room, almost to the point of being uncomfortable. From there, you can deliver a bombshell or a punchline to an audience that’s perched on the edge of their seats to hear what you’re going to say next.
3. Wear comfortable shoes. This is advice that most people only learn through painful experience because no one thinks to warn you beforehand. Trust me on this. (And while you’re at it, make sure that your soles are non-slip.)
4. Design your visual aids with a thoroughly minimalist sensibility. Whatever people are there to learn, it’s better for them to hear it directly from you rather than read it off your slides. The best way to use slides is with a single visual on each one. The next best way is to use words as sparingly as possible; use them not as a script but as a scaffold on which to hang the real presentation, the one that you’ve giving right in front of them,
5. Tell stories. If you can find a short story to illustrate each of your important points, you’ll vault yourself into the top tier of presenters at your conference or event. Audiences relate to stories and, more important, they remember stories.
6. Study video of your presentations. You often don’t look like what you think you look like. I still come across blog posts that advise speakers to practice in front of a mirror. Simply put, this doesn’t work. You can’t see the things you need to see in a mirror. Not that they’re not there; you literally can’t see them because your minds edits and selectively interprets the signals it gets from your eyes. You’re just too involved with the image you see in the mirror to evaluative it usefully. Video gives you something relatively more objective to observe.
7. If logistics don’t confine you to a stage, walk around the room. Your judicious incorporation of movement into your presentation will keep your audience on its metaphoric toes. It’s a subtle but significant way to hold their attention and keep them engaged.
8. Find ways to get your audience to participate. There are lots of ways to get an audience involved. Ask a question and solicit answers. Take a poll that requires show of hands. Get volunteers from the audience to role play. (NB: There’s a significant “degree of difficulty” factor on that one.) Like other items on this list, audience participation increases engagement.
9. Don’t read from your slides. Closely related to item number four above, this is one of the cardinal sins that unpracticed presenters commit. If this was the only item on this list that you totally mastered, you’d be better than at least half of the presenters that members of your audience have ever heard.
10. Practice, practice, practice. It’s almost impossible to do an outstanding job with a presentation you’ve never given before. There are always places that fall unexpectedly flat and transitions that don’t quite flow as smoothly as they did in your head. If it’s at all possible, find an opportunity to try your big presentation out on an “off Broadway” audience before you step out on stage in front of your actual target audience. Every time you give a particular presentation it will get more and more polished. (And here’s a corollary: In general, it’s easier to find a new audience than it is to craft a new presentation.)
It shouldn’t be any secret that I’m supporting Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. I happen to believe that he’s right on the issues. At least as important is that face that, whether you agree with him or not he, brings a degree of forthrightness and integrity that we seldom see in top tier, major party candidate.
I believe that over the course of a long campaign, addressing inequality in our system will be a message that resonates with a large swath of voters. In reality, there are more substantive interests that unite the bottom 99 percent than divide us. Now, click ahead to the 16:00 mark and give a listen to a guy who flies coach:
Now that this blog has a respectable backlog of posts, my plan is to gradually increase the frequency of my posts as I undertake a similarly gradual uptick in my promotional efforts. Toward that end, I’ve begun experimenting with creating memes.
The idea, of course, is to create and distribute memes that will—with any luck—make their way to readers who’ll like what they find here at georgecolombo.com. With all of that in mind, I thought you might want to see a few of my early efforts (along with a random thought or two about each).
I created this one immediately after writing this blog post about the upcoming efforts to make medical marijuana available in the state of Florida. Both the meme and the blog post seemed to get a fair amount of positive attention on Facebook. I expect this is a topic I’ll be revisiting regularly as the ballot process progresses towards November of 2016.
I created this meme after seeing The End of the Tour, a movie about the great author, David Foster Wallace. There’s a slightly better quote than this in the move that conveys basically the same message but I couldn’t find it online and didn’t want to wait. Wallace was a towering intellect and, while Jason Segel delivers a plausible David Foster Wallage, watching video of the real Wallace is more intriguing for me. (Sure, see the movie but check out this Charlie Rose interview in the meantime.)
I’ve had three real, enduing heroes over the course of my life but Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is at the very top of the list. Today, Dr. King is perceived to be an anodyne figure, bland and inoffensive. The reality is that he was reviled in his lifetime and for a generation afterwards by large numbers of Americans. He was considered a rabble-rouser, publicity seeker, and a communist (the worst epithet you could hurl at someone at the time). This is one of several quotes by Dr. King that have really resonated with me over the years.
When I saw Michael Moore’s Sicko, this quote by British politician Tony Benn really caught my attention. It’s so stark, so simple and, ultimately, so irrefutable. The specific topic in the movie was healthcare reform but Benn’s sentiment can extend out to embrace a whole range of things we can do with our money besides shoveling it into the production of arms
I’d be curious to get your feedback on these. My intention has been to use quotes that reflect the values of the blog. Does that make sense to you? And a Bonus Question: Can you put your finger on what motivates you to share something when you see it?
There are very few indispensable voices in today’s media environment but any reasonable list of those who qualify would have to include Glenn Greenwald. He’s the embodiment of independent journalism and there’s no better evidence of that than his column about the Ramos/Trump story.
It’s tempting to try to summarize the two or three most important take-aways from the article but I’d prefer that you take a moment to read the whole thing yourself. It’s important not only for Greenwald’s perspective on the incident itself but also for the broader issues he raises about the nature of corporate media in 2015. (And by “corporate media,” I mean literally 95 percent of all our media, every newspaper and television program you read or watch.)
If you haven’t seen the video yet, you’ll want to take a look:
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, “The hardest thing to see is what is in front of our eyes” but no one can fail to see the inherent absurdities and dangers of this Potemkin campaign of Donald Trump’s. Apparently the real challenge for our “serious” media personalities today is to call out the cynical con that’s right there in front of their eyes.
Attorney John Morgan’s United for Care is readying another campaign to pass a Constitutional Amendment in Florida that would provide for the therapeutic use of cannabis under doctors’ supervision. (The organization’s previous attempt in 2014 was approved by about 58 percent of voters—a higher percentage than any candidate on the ballot including Governor Rick Scott—but failed to reach the 60 percent threshold required to pass this kind of ballot initiative.)
While the prospects for success look good in a presidential election year, the opposition is gearing up, too. A coalition of religious and law enforcement organizations including the Florida Sheriff’s Association is trotting out the familiar arguments here. (It’s worth noting that opposition to legalizing cannabis is far from universal in the law enforcement community. A number of progressive law enforcement officials believe that cannabis prohibition is considerably more harmful and dangerous than the plant itself.)
While many point out that law enforcement agencies in Florida have a vested interest in continuing prohibition—they generate millions of dollars for themselves from civil forfeiture proceedings, for example—I’m willing to stipulate that their arguments against liberalizing cannabis laws are made in good faith. But if public health and safety are genuinely what they’re concerned with, I’d like to make a modest proposal that might clarify the issues surrounding cannabis and enhance the credibility of the arguments they’re making.
Simply put, I wonder if the Sheriff’s Association would be willing to broaden the scope of its concern to include all of the substances that individuals use to self-medicate:
Over the counter medications
To claim, as the coalition’s website does, that cannabis “has a high potential for abuse with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence” is, at best, an incomplete telling of the story. If the problem is that cannabis is dangerous then it’s worth asking: Compared to what?
It seems that we, as a society, have long ago determined that we’re willing to balance the perceived benefits of using any of these substances against some hypothetical state of absolute safety. It shouldn’t be necessary, then, to demonstrate that cannabis is perfectly safe under any and all circumstances. After all, we couldn’t make that claim for aspirin and we certainly couldn’t make it for bourbon.
So, here’s my proposal. Let’s establish an objective set of safety standards and then apply them to all of the items on our list. Then, the Sheriff’s Association or any of the other organizations in the anti-cannabis coalition can make their policy prescriptions in a rational and objective context.
Here’s what doesn’t make sense: Insisting that one item on the list meet standards that we’re not willing to apply to other items that are objectively more dangerous. (If anyone wants to make the case that cannabis is more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, then I’m happy to let them do so… but I’m guessing that any sort of supporting data would be difficult to produce.)
If it’s genuinely important to prosecute cannabis users in order to protect them from themselves, then don’t we owe the same level of protection to individuals who choose to self-medicate in other ways? But if we refuse to do that—if it seems like an irrational overreach to do so—then maybe it’s time to admit that prosecuting cannabis users never really made much sense in the first place.
Last week, Pittsburgh Steelers Linebacker James Harrison posted on Instagram and Twitter that he was returning the trophies his sons received for participating in their youth football program. The story generated a great deal of attention, as you probably know, on television and in social media.
I came home to find out that my boys received two trophies for nothing, participation trophies! While… https://t.co/rO6r9cZ1v8
When I responded to Mr. Harrison’s Twitter post by suggesting that he consider some additional perspective on the matter, a few Harrison fans took vigorous exception to my tweet. (One guy suggested that my post was “retarded.” Another incongruously wanted to know how many Super Bowl champions I’ve raised.)
Among the responses I received, though, was one from Daphne Sashin, a CNN reporter who writes about parenting issues. She wanted a more complete explanation of my thoughts on the topic than I was able to provide in 140 characters.
This subject has gotten a great deal of attention in the media since it was first reported so I thought it might be worthwhile to share my thoughts here on this blog. This, then, is what I wrote:
Per your request on Twitter, I’m writing with a few thoughts on James Harrison’s Instagram post about returning his sons’ trophies for participating in sports. Let me preface everything I’m going to write with a few important points: One, I don’t know Mr. Harrison but am confident that he loves his kids tremendously and decided to do this with the very best of intentions. Two, I wouldn’t presume to tell Mr. Harrison (or anyone else, for that matter) how to raise his children. And, third, I am a parent, not a psychologist or a pediatrician. I hope that you’ll contact professionals who are qualified to discuss this topic based on real data (like Nadine Burke Harris, for example) for your article.
Having said all that, let me offer a few thoughts in no particular order.
While Mr. Harrison is understandably focused on his own kids, I wonder if he’s considered the fact that his action is likely to diminish the perceived value of the trophies that every other child in the league received. It’s almost certain that, as a professional player and a champion, Mr. Harrison is a big deal among the children who play sports with his boys. His refusal to allow his sons to accept their trophies very likely undermines the league, the coaches, and the other parents who don’t have NFL aspirations for their kids.
I find it difficult to understand how setting one’s kids apart from their teammates teaches values like sportsmanship and teamwork, the specific values that most parents are trying to teach when they enlist their kids in sports.
It seems to me that there’s a danger of an action like Mr. Harrison’s being misinterpreted by his kids, something along the lines of “Everyone else is good enough for their parents but you’re not good enough for me.” Obviously, his kids are pretty young (they stop giving participation trophies to older kids) and the point he’s trying to make is pretty sophisticated so the chances of this aren’t insignificant. More likely, in my opinion, is that it will become what Dr. Harris refers to as an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE).
My personal belief is that the most important thing we can do for our kids is to provide them with a foundation of love and support on which they can build, on which they’re secure enough to learn to achieve. That’s been the philosophy that guided my wife and me in parenting our two boys (I’ll admit freely that she has an intuitive understanding of these things that far exceeds my own) and I think it’s worked pretty well.
Instances in which parents get overly involved in their young kids’ sports endeavors tend to not work out well. You can Google Jimmy Piersall or Todd Marinovitch for a couple of more famous examples. In my experience, I’ve seen more talented young athletes damaged by their parents than helped. One young man on my younger son’s Little League team was an extremely talented pitcher who was never quite good enough to get his father’s approval. By high school, he’d given up baseball altogether.
I disagree with Mr. Harrison’s diminishment of the value of participation, especially at a young age. It seems to me that it’s more than a little important to teach the value of participation and to reward it for young kids. It strikes me as counterproductive to tell children that their participation isn’t adequate. There’s plenty of time later to mold them into champions if that’s what Mr. Harrison believes is important.
Finally, I understand and even admire Mr. Harrison’s impetus to foster achievement in his kids. I hope, however, that he isn’t doing so at the expense of their happiness or at the expense of his relationship with them in later years. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to value my kids’ happiness far more than I value any “achievement” of theirs.
Thanks for reaching out. I hope this is helpful.
I’d be interested in getting your thoughts in the Comments section. And, if you’re interested, here’s the TED Talk by Dr. Nadine Burke Harris that I referenced on the subject of Adverse Childhood Events:
Jon Stewart bowed out of The Daily Show last night with a meditation on the single most pervasive reality of life in the United States in 2015: The relentless, unending cascade of bullshit that rains down on us every day from every media outlet we monitor and every mobile device we own.
The ubiquity of bullshit is almost impossible to overstate. Of course, it pervades every one of the 5,000 marketing messages that are aimed at each of us every single day but that’s just the tip of an enormous iceberg. In fact, the “news” we watch is every bit as phony as the ads. My favorite example is this classic clip from The Today Show. There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about Michelle Kosinski’s dishonesty here except for the fact that she managed to get caught.
Like Paddy Chayefsky’s Howard Beale, Stewart reminds us that we are ultimately responsible for accepting the bullshit to which we’re exposed. Beale’s famous prescription was getting people to proclaim, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.” Stewart, on the other hand, is a bit more concise and elegant: “If you smell something, say something.”
Whichever formulation you prefer, the basic idea is the same. Bullshit loses its power when we acknowledge it instead of ignoring it. Is this the right approach for you? Ask your doctor.
I turned 60 years old a few months ago and—like everything else in life—it’s got an upside and a downside. One of the significant benefits is the interesting perspective it brings. It’s like reaching the top of a peak from which you can look back and see a long arc of events over a relatively long period of time. It’s easier to see how things have changed over time (and, sometimes, how they haven’t).
From this vantage point, I’ve noticed one trend that’s played out over the last couple of decades in particularly harmful ways. It’s not unique in our history—we’ve lived through periods like this before—but up until about 25 years ago, we’d mostly moved on. What I’m seeing is a paradigm shift in the way we conduct politics. We’ve moved from an emphasis on getting things done to an emphasis on beating the other party at all costs.
I thought about this while I was listening to an audio clip of Chris Christie announcing his presidential candidacy. Christie is probably not a guy I could ever support but he said something today that made a lot of sense. It struck me as something that we would all do well to remember:
“If Washington and Adams and Jefferson believed that compromise was a dirty word, we’d still be under the crown of England.”
There was a time not too long ago when this would have been the least controversial statement imaginable. Politics was understood to be “the art of compromise” and it was this widely shared attitude that facilitated one of the nation’s most dynamic eras. It was an era in which we undertook great projects and programs together. We built the Hoover Dam and the Interstate system of highways. We moved to advance civil rights and to solidify voting rights. We went to the moon and built a social safety net that was designed to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens. The common denominator among all of these was that members of both parties were committed to getting something done and were willing to make practical compromises in the service of a greater good.
One of the motivations behind this brand of dysfunctional rigidity is the notion that the other party is the enemy and must be defeated. Tragically, it’s a mindset that works well politically but it’s also one that’s completely incompatible with the ideals we as a nation profess and basically incompatible with our system of government.
George Washington understood the dangers of partisanship and presciently warned against them in his Farewell Address when he left office. He understood that partisan allegiance had the potential to be toxic in precisely the way that it is today. (It’s worth noting that our Constitution doesn’t reference political parties and makes no provision for their participation in government.)
A better, more functional model is to see each other as colleagues who disagree.
Imagine yourself at work, on a committee tasked with reviewing the company’s product line and recommending additions and deletions. Then, imagine that the committee is evenly divided between those who want to maximize profitability from existing products and those who believe that innovative new products are the company’s real future.
It’s not hard to predict that people on each side might dig in and defend their point of view energetically. It’s almost impossible, though, to imagine one side threatening to shut the company down if the committee didn’t go along with its plans. But that’s where we find ourselves today when it comes to our politics.
I’ve written before that even our most cherished beliefs ought to be held with a certain amount of circumspection. In politics no less than any other field of endeavor, intellectual rigidity seldom works in our favor. As one wag put it, “If you haven’t changed your mind about anything lately, how do you know if it’s working?”
I prefer to approach political adversaries with the assumption that they’re acting in good faith and trying to do the right thing. That’s not always true, of course, but neither is it always true of those on my own side of the political divide. Still, it’s a better approach than reflexive opposition. It’s less stressful and who knows? As Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill demonstrated 30 years ago, it just might lead to something getting accomplished.