While I don't disagree with the general points given here, I feel this is how to give a great talk, not necessarily a great scientific talk.
There's an interesting point buried here (emphasis mine):
> Presenters often fail because they try to deliver too much complex information. Language and content, normally, has to be designed with the non-specialist SCIENTIST in mind. “You have to think about the least knowledgeable person in your audience THAT YOU CARE ABOUT REACHING” says Rubenson.
If you are presenting a breakthrough in compilers in a compilers workshop, maybe you don't want to start your talk explaining what a compiler is. Step 0 of every presentation should be "know your audience", and if your audience is expecting complex information you will have to get into details at some point.
That doesn't mean that elitism is a good thing. I think both beginners and professionals should walk our of your talk understanding something new. And a good scientific presentation should be also a good presentation. But with limited time (major conferences implemented 20 minutes talks this year), you need to set your baseline knowledge somewhere.
>I feel this is how to give a great talk, not necessarily a great scientific talk.
I come from a Biology background so maybe its different, but I have been to so many talks where 90% of the audience is grad students and looking around the room you can tell none of them are getting anything out of the talk because they got lost in the first five minutes. Sure it would be silly for every Neuroscience talk to waste five minutes explaining what a brain is, but even seasoned scientists seem to take for granted that not everyone studies their same corner of the field. Giving sufficient background info is severely underrated in talks, as is very explicitly stating ideas that will be necessary to appreciate the core thesis of the talk is. I'm sympathetic to the fact that timing is tight and scientists want to save a significant amount of time for their actual research, but if most of the room comes away from the talk with absolutely nothing then it was a wasted effort. You're right that the presenter should know their audience and that would fix things, its just that in my experience, the presenter is almost always overestimating their audience.
I guess, as a defence mechanism, people embbed complex (almost impossible to understand during the talk) information in their slides, avoiding hard questioning afterwards.
It was not once or twice that I have witnessed that during conferences and workshops. People are afraid to be ridiculized in public, or seem incompetent in front of a large audience. We won't be seeing that to change in the short run, unfortunately.
> If you are presenting a breakthrough in compilers in a compilers workshop, maybe you don't want to start your talk explaining what a compiler is. Step 0 of every presentation should be "know your audience", and if your audience is expecting complex information you will have to get into details at some point.
My personal pet peeve of nearly every astronomy documentary/talk/youtube video is that they have to explain what black holes are. By aiming at a way to general audience it wastes the time of the (usually) 99.9% who understand it at least as well as the somewhat brief description they include.
For scientific/technical talks specifically, a truly useful technique I learned from The Craft of Scientific Presentations[1] is the assertion-evidence slide.
This type of slide has a complete sentence at the top that makes a substantive assertion. Then the rest of the slide contains evidence for that assertion usually in the form of a diagram, chart or table. This type of slide is the backbone of a scientific presentation.
All good points, but there are a couple mistakes I often see people (not just beginners) make that did not get mentioned:
1. State the problem (and convince the audience it matters) before rushing to present a solution.
2. Know the background of your audience, and figure out how well they need to know the background to get something out of your talk.
And to the grad students: sometimes, when one only has 10-15 minutes to give a talk, it is hard to give one that makes sense to junior members of the audience and still speak to the experts. Don't give up! and don't be shy about asking speakers questions afterwards. Sure, there are some people who think they are too important to talk to grad students (or even faculty) they don't know. The worst you get from asking such people a questions is you get brushed off (don't worry, they're not likely to remember who you are, and it's not likely to have a negative impact on your career). But more often people are happy to go into details, and/or put you in touch with the postdoc / grad student who knows all the gory details, etc. etc.
State the problem (and convince the audience it matters) before rushing to present a solution.
Exactly. A presentation that is about a "what" or "how" often should start with the "why". The audience needs to care about what is being presented, and often the best way to do that is to remind them why they should care.
Tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them.
My key advice is to gear the talk to the audience and context. A TED talk will have a completely different presentation style than an academic conference where people might be actually interested in the more nitty gritty details.
> Tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them.
I see this a lot in talks and even in canned presentations and I don't recommend it.
I think it comes from people padding their talks to fit within a certain time frame. Or perhaps, some speakers have realized that enough audience members utterly tune-out during the talk and need to be reminded of what the talk was about just as they're waking-up and getting ready for the next meeting. Somehow it got drilled into people that this is a necessary structure, but it is not!
Much better, I think, to remove material from the talk to the point where the speaker is making one, maybe two interesting assertions that are supported succinctly. Every talk should leave time for discussion.
The best way to make your talk memorable is to focus on substance over style. Work hard on giving something new for the audience to chew on. Without interesting content the audience will tune out no matter how well you structure the talk.
Toastmasters International was mentioned in the article. I just finished my Toastmasters “competent communicator” a few months ago. Here are some of my tips for public speaking in general:
1. Breathe! This is easier said than done when you are caught in an anxiety driven feedback loop where your breadth gets more shallow making you even more anxious. Halt this process by taking deep breadths.
2. Limit caffeine. Caffeine exacerbates feelings of anxiety especially in public speaking scenarios.
3. Beware of ruminating and catastrophic thoughts. You don't need to fight or eliminate them. In fact, doing so may make anxious feelings worse. But in a kind and compassionate manner towards yourself, just acknowledge they are there and the role that anxiety may play in those negative thoughts. Moreover, if you really do screwup the presentation, with some time no one will remember. We can recall great speeches but rarely terrible ones.
4. Attend a local public speaking club such as toastmasters (plug here for Speakeasy II here in Boulder, Colorado). Regularly speaking in front of audiences will take you through the desensitization process and over time giving a speech in front of a group of people will seem not so scary.
Incidentally, yesterday I came across a great scientific talk that I think checked all the boxes here, and then some. 100k views+, but deserves an even larger audience IMO, could clear up some of the confusion about climate (the facts parts):
Dan Britt - Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of Climate
Obviously, I think this is a great talk since I find the topic interesting too. There is probably not much you can do if your audience is uninterested in the first place.
If people are interested in some good scientific and philosophical lectures, I found the ones by Royal Institution to be interesting. Haven't watched all of them, but the ones on memory and neuroscience were particularly good.
Uri Alon gave excellent advice on how to give a good talk. I feel Uri Alon gives much more specific details on how to structure the talk, body language, and most importantly how to handle questions.
For very important presentations, recording yourself can be useful too. It can be excruciating to watch it again, but it forms part of a powerful iterative loop.
Unrelated to the posted article, but native English speakers might have a small disadvantage in getting understood, because they don't always know which word choices are less known among those who learned English as a second language.
And native British English speakers can have a larger disadvantage in getting understood, among people who know English well but are not used to British accents. I was recently in a workshop where I had no trouble understanding the talks given by Chinese, Finnish, German, Indian, Russian, Swedish and whatever speakers. But a native British person, I really had to concentrate because they spoke fast and with a heavy accent. American accents I always find easy, though.
> American accents I always find very easy, though.
That might possibly be due to the hegemony of the American movie/television industry? In my case, I know that a majority of the English-spoken entertainment I consume is American-made, so much that British English now gives me a distinct, "exotic" feeling.
I can think of 3 exceptions. All have the same kind of academic/aristocratic sounding accent: Simon Peyton Jones, Lindybeige, and Rowan Atkinson (in Jonny English, and possibly in Blackadder too). For a time, I thought that's how British sounded like…
Note that you native British English speakers may have trouble with american accents. Though with the influence of Hollywood in movies they probably can pick up some no problems. However don't expect them to pick up a heavy southern drawl though.
[+] [-] probably_wrong|7 years ago|reply
There's an interesting point buried here (emphasis mine):
> Presenters often fail because they try to deliver too much complex information. Language and content, normally, has to be designed with the non-specialist SCIENTIST in mind. “You have to think about the least knowledgeable person in your audience THAT YOU CARE ABOUT REACHING” says Rubenson.
If you are presenting a breakthrough in compilers in a compilers workshop, maybe you don't want to start your talk explaining what a compiler is. Step 0 of every presentation should be "know your audience", and if your audience is expecting complex information you will have to get into details at some point.
That doesn't mean that elitism is a good thing. I think both beginners and professionals should walk our of your talk understanding something new. And a good scientific presentation should be also a good presentation. But with limited time (major conferences implemented 20 minutes talks this year), you need to set your baseline knowledge somewhere.
[+] [-] el_cujo|7 years ago|reply
I come from a Biology background so maybe its different, but I have been to so many talks where 90% of the audience is grad students and looking around the room you can tell none of them are getting anything out of the talk because they got lost in the first five minutes. Sure it would be silly for every Neuroscience talk to waste five minutes explaining what a brain is, but even seasoned scientists seem to take for granted that not everyone studies their same corner of the field. Giving sufficient background info is severely underrated in talks, as is very explicitly stating ideas that will be necessary to appreciate the core thesis of the talk is. I'm sympathetic to the fact that timing is tight and scientists want to save a significant amount of time for their actual research, but if most of the room comes away from the talk with absolutely nothing then it was a wasted effort. You're right that the presenter should know their audience and that would fix things, its just that in my experience, the presenter is almost always overestimating their audience.
[+] [-] raister|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flukus|7 years ago|reply
My personal pet peeve of nearly every astronomy documentary/talk/youtube video is that they have to explain what black holes are. By aiming at a way to general audience it wastes the time of the (usually) 99.9% who understand it at least as well as the somewhat brief description they include.
[+] [-] jrauser|7 years ago|reply
This type of slide has a complete sentence at the top that makes a substantive assertion. Then the rest of the slide contains evidence for that assertion usually in the form of a diagram, chart or table. This type of slide is the backbone of a scientific presentation.
Generally, Alley's book is extremely useful.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Craft-Scientific-Presentations-Critic...
[+] [-] kkylin|7 years ago|reply
1. State the problem (and convince the audience it matters) before rushing to present a solution.
2. Know the background of your audience, and figure out how well they need to know the background to get something out of your talk.
And to the grad students: sometimes, when one only has 10-15 minutes to give a talk, it is hard to give one that makes sense to junior members of the audience and still speak to the experts. Don't give up! and don't be shy about asking speakers questions afterwards. Sure, there are some people who think they are too important to talk to grad students (or even faculty) they don't know. The worst you get from asking such people a questions is you get brushed off (don't worry, they're not likely to remember who you are, and it's not likely to have a negative impact on your career). But more often people are happy to go into details, and/or put you in touch with the postdoc / grad student who knows all the gory details, etc. etc.
[+] [-] Joeri|7 years ago|reply
Exactly. A presentation that is about a "what" or "how" often should start with the "why". The audience needs to care about what is being presented, and often the best way to do that is to remind them why they should care.
Amusingly, this is itself also a talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPYeCltXpxw
[+] [-] bluenose69|7 years ago|reply
1. Tell people why the work excites you. 2. Make sure that everyone in the room learns something.
[+] [-] Beldin|7 years ago|reply
Make sure your slides support your story, and make sure they do not distract from the presenter.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rotorblade|7 years ago|reply
www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/talks/talk.pdf
[+] [-] Rainymood|7 years ago|reply
My key advice is to gear the talk to the audience and context. A TED talk will have a completely different presentation style than an academic conference where people might be actually interested in the more nitty gritty details.
[+] [-] crispyambulance|7 years ago|reply
I think it comes from people padding their talks to fit within a certain time frame. Or perhaps, some speakers have realized that enough audience members utterly tune-out during the talk and need to be reminded of what the talk was about just as they're waking-up and getting ready for the next meeting. Somehow it got drilled into people that this is a necessary structure, but it is not!
Much better, I think, to remove material from the talk to the point where the speaker is making one, maybe two interesting assertions that are supported succinctly. Every talk should leave time for discussion.
[+] [-] carusooneliner|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julienchastang|7 years ago|reply
1. Breathe! This is easier said than done when you are caught in an anxiety driven feedback loop where your breadth gets more shallow making you even more anxious. Halt this process by taking deep breadths.
2. Limit caffeine. Caffeine exacerbates feelings of anxiety especially in public speaking scenarios.
3. Beware of ruminating and catastrophic thoughts. You don't need to fight or eliminate them. In fact, doing so may make anxious feelings worse. But in a kind and compassionate manner towards yourself, just acknowledge they are there and the role that anxiety may play in those negative thoughts. Moreover, if you really do screwup the presentation, with some time no one will remember. We can recall great speeches but rarely terrible ones.
4. Attend a local public speaking club such as toastmasters (plug here for Speakeasy II here in Boulder, Colorado). Regularly speaking in front of audiences will take you through the desensitization process and over time giving a speech in front of a group of people will seem not so scary.
[+] [-] oh_sigh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xamuel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stareatgoats|7 years ago|reply
Dan Britt - Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of Climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM
Obviously, I think this is a great talk since I find the topic interesting too. There is probably not much you can do if your audience is uninterested in the first place.
[+] [-] porpoisely|7 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalInstitution/videos
[+] [-] j7ake|7 years ago|reply
https://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/fulltext/S1097-2765(09)0...
[+] [-] janwillemb|7 years ago|reply
+1. Practice out loud, rewrite, practice out loud again, rewrite, repeat, repeat, repeat.
Also: let a real person listen to your talk at least once while rehearsing. (Tip: use spouse, if available)
[+] [-] caillancm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sampo|7 years ago|reply
And native British English speakers can have a larger disadvantage in getting understood, among people who know English well but are not used to British accents. I was recently in a workshop where I had no trouble understanding the talks given by Chinese, Finnish, German, Indian, Russian, Swedish and whatever speakers. But a native British person, I really had to concentrate because they spoke fast and with a heavy accent. American accents I always find easy, though.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-spe...
[+] [-] lou1306|7 years ago|reply
That might possibly be due to the hegemony of the American movie/television industry? In my case, I know that a majority of the English-spoken entertainment I consume is American-made, so much that British English now gives me a distinct, "exotic" feeling.
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|7 years ago|reply
Then I saw Life on Mars.
[+] [-] bluGill|7 years ago|reply