When I looked in the comment section I was expecting intelligent discussion of the principles being discussed in this lecture, not some weird discussion of the quality and entertainment value of his presentation style. I found his presentation interesting enough I actually specifically searched for more videos by this man exploring this topic in more detail. I have heard some truly terrible, boring, disorganized, incompetent presentations in my day, and this isn’t even close to being one. I have no idea what the other people in this chat are talking about, but I am so glad your comment is here to help me realize I am not alone and also am not losing my mind.
Put the rest in a book which people can control by leafing through. Anyhpw the message here is apparently approach people indirectly. Well, that is very true in the sense that the more personal the objective - friendship, love, sex - the more oblique and roundabout the best strategy. After all, the inexplicit is the plane where things are really going on, not the verbal.
Kay speaks in an intelligent measured way which has plenty of variety in tone, yet this video proves his own point by flouting it - there is far too much direct camera work on his own face as talking head, or rather, talking body, and the images he uses as examples are too fleeting. The result teaches us that the indirect - the images - are easier to pay attention to than the teacher talking in front of a blackboard.
I haven't read the book, but I find his presentation of his ideas very sloppy and unpersuasive. His examples don't really demonstrate the point he says he is making. The ICI example is an example of putting short term profit ahead of long term investment. The London Tube example is just bad design. Another case of someone writing a book and giving presentations for the sake of it.
Of course, his laborious unrolling of his point is too slow to hold ones attention anyway, so the example is not very clear. The basic problem is that he is reading from a prepared script, which is the most soporific style of presentation of all. That is why bedtime stories are read to little children to settle them down for the night. (Yawn). (Eyes closing, sorry).
He's a bright fellow, no doubt about it. Typical FT domehead. But is he a sound bite merchant? Sadly, not. The essence of holding attention to day is to serve up sound bites. Then do it again in a different way. That gets the message attended to, since people only pay attention to 1/3 at most anyway. Also, boil it down. Twitter proves this principle very well. Force people to 140 letters or whatever and they can do it. Less said the more retained.
Kay isn’t boring! His voice is very soothing for some reason, like a lullaby. Maybe you guys aren’t used to people who don’t do the Toastmsaters style
When I looked in the comment section I was expecting intelligent discussion of the principles being discussed in this lecture, not some weird discussion of the quality and entertainment value of his presentation style. I found his presentation interesting enough I actually specifically searched for more videos by this man exploring this topic in more detail. I have heard some truly terrible, boring, disorganized, incompetent presentations in my day, and this isn’t even close to being one. I have no idea what the other people in this chat are talking about, but I am so glad your comment is here to help me realize I am not alone and also am not losing my mind.
Put the rest in a book which people can control by leafing through. Anyhpw the message here is apparently approach people indirectly. Well, that is very true in the sense that the more personal the objective - friendship, love, sex - the more oblique and roundabout the best strategy. After all, the inexplicit is the plane where things are really going on, not the verbal.
hE'S so boring!! and yet he has all my attention. Grand. Oblique even in holding my attention. Success.
Kay speaks in an intelligent measured way which has plenty of variety in tone, yet this video proves his own point by flouting it - there is far too much direct camera work on his own face as talking head, or rather, talking body, and the images he uses as examples are too fleeting. The result teaches us that the indirect - the images - are easier to pay attention to than the teacher talking in front of a blackboard.
I haven't read the book, but I find his presentation of his ideas very sloppy and unpersuasive. His examples don't really demonstrate the point he says he is making. The ICI example is an example of putting short term profit ahead of long term investment. The London Tube example is just bad design.
Another case of someone writing a book and giving presentations for the sake of it.
Of course, his laborious unrolling of his point is too slow to hold ones attention anyway, so the example is not very clear. The basic problem is that he is reading from a prepared script, which is the most soporific style of presentation of all. That is why bedtime stories are read to little children to settle them down for the night. (Yawn). (Eyes closing, sorry).
He's a bright fellow, no doubt about it. Typical FT domehead. But is he a sound bite merchant? Sadly, not. The essence of holding attention to day is to serve up sound bites. Then do it again in a different way. That gets the message attended to, since people only pay attention to 1/3 at most anyway. Also, boil it down. Twitter proves this principle very well. Force people to 140 letters or whatever and they can do it. Less said the more retained.
Most boring man alive? I'm afraid you need to look beyond delivery to the content of what Kay is saying- you'd gain something in the process.