SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
These techniques may help reduce the acrimony in the comments.
Bad at public speaking? The trick is to distill your message to these 15 words, says speech trainer:
Very few of us are naturally eloquent. But in an age of disconnection — working from home, connecting with the world through a laptop camera — the ability to communicate clearly and effectively has never been more important.
My journey in public speaking started in 2010, after I discovered that 74% of Americans suffer from speech anxiety. My research led me to the Ancient Greeks, who invented speech training, to the present day, when I joined Toastmasters, the world's largest organization devoted to teaching the art of public speaking.
What did I learn? Being a great public speaker has nothing to do with your personality, with overcoming shyness or learning to act confident. It's a technical skill that nearly anyone can acquire, just like cooking.
[...] Then, it's time to distill your message. An effective method is to use this simple, 15-word sentence: As a result of my [talk], they will understand [this], and respond by [doing that].
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday March 29 2021, @10:13PM
He's a hypocritical fucknut - laughably so.
However, the perfect small set would be expected to have the higher value because the flawed larger set raises questions of batch quality, brand quality, or even authenticity. Under all three doubts, the perfect set retains, and the flawed set destroys, the perception of being a veblen good. I'd like to see the X-Y plot of the answers. My answers would be #180 and #150, for reference, as I indeed no longer trust the quality of the production. And don't value "quality" veblen goods the way that manufacturers would want me to.
So his first point was billed as "counterintuitive", yet I find it completely intuitive, and apparently the majority of the people who were asked the value of the sets agree with me. And I'm sure they'd be able to put into words their reasons, they understand that they perceive the set as maybe being a bit shit. Which I think makes the majority correct. Yup, sorry, that does mean I think you're wrong on this matter, don't take it personally; I've explained my reasoning, feel free to share your (two values and) reasoning back, I'm genuinely interested. (I am a bit of a psychology nerd, which reminds me I need to clean up my inbox, one of my old universities has just said they want to anally probe my brain again, and that mail has scrolled up too much...)
In the second example, the applicants, he's just plain wrong. The second guy has shown that he also probably has time management skills, a functioning sense of responsibility, generosity, interpersonal skills, the ability to cope with losing graciously, the ability to win graciously too. All seemingly positive traits. So he makes a really weak point with this example.
The third one - the medical one - is well known, and the medical/marketting companies know this, it's deliberately done, they have professional psychologists on staff to exploit these tricks. The average man on the street might not be familiar with this, and how their own thought processes work, so I think this is a useful and informative example of the dilution effect.
So with those examples, his central point was diluted.
His summary was a bit incoherent, as his three examples were not similar enough to corroborate each other to support his central premise, and he did repeat it several times with different wordings, presumably hoping that one of them would resonate better with the audience.
Which of course means that his summary was diluted too.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves