What She Said. Monica Lunin
HOW SHE DID THAT
Bring awe and wonder to the process of discovery
When talking about shame and vulnerability, Brené Brown steps into the shoes of her research subjects. Typically, academic writing and the lectures that follow are rather impersonal. In fact, researchers are careful to remove any traces of themselves from their content. Add in generous doses of technical jargon and we are left with these disembodied voices with which audiences struggle to connect.
But Brown breaks the mould. Rather than telling us about a hypothesis she had and how she went about designing and executing a research study, she makes it personal. ‘You know how I feel about vulnerability …'
Speakers often find it challenging to make technical content relatable. For this problem, Brown's first TED talk delivers a critical lesson. Put yourself in the story, and make the problem, hypothesis and discovery your own. Frame your method in the first person. Don't present a report-like exposition of facts; instead, show us how you were feeling at the various stages of doubt. Display the emotions of wonder as you yourself made new connections.
When Brown uses phrases such as, ‘So I was ready, and I was really excited', it is as though we are doing the research alongside her. We're shown how throwing your whole self into a project like this is anything but dull. We traverse the challenges and doubt with her and we laugh with her about the (not so) mini-breakdown, when her findings did not jive with her assumptions. These challenges, hurdles and mini-triumphs help us relate to the process of discovery. (Brown details her breakdown/spiritual awakening in the full version of her TED Talk — see Sources for details.)
Can you find ways to animate your research or technical content by putting yourself back in the picture? Many of your listeners will be drawn to a familiarity with you and that could be the gateway to gaining their attention and interest.
Establish synergy with your central idea
One of the interesting aspects that make this talk so remarkable is that Brené Brown lives and breathes the very subject of her thesis. Vulnerability is a necessary human condition. Simply saying those words, however, is not enough to convey meaning to the audience. Add the demonstration of the concept, throughout the talk, and you will impact the feeling as well as the thinking side of your audience member's mind.
What Brown manages, quite masterfully in this talk, is to consistently exhibit vulnerability. She takes the concept down from the academic shelf, tries it on and shows us how it looks on her. This not only enhances our understanding of the content, but also draws us closer to the speaker.
In a very un-technical way, Brown openly shares her need for and visits to a therapist. She talks about vulnerability while showing unmistakable vulnerability herself. In the full version of the talk, she explains how she told her therapist:
I know that vulnerability is the core of shame and fear and our struggle for worthiness. But it appears that it is also the birthplace of joy and creativity, of belonging and love.
Even the tiny, seemingly throwaway lines — such as the ‘academic, insecure part' of her asking why she wasn't being dubbed a ‘magic pixie' — are tiny, self-deprecating examples of vulnerability. In the full version, Brown peppers her talk with similar comments — ‘I have a slight office supply addiction, but that's another talk', ‘I always go into this Jackson Pollock crazy thing'. This layering of her own vulnerability makes her more endearing and her ideas more enduring.
Take the time to connect
Imagine you were presenting the findings from years of your own research. Would you be able to do it effectively in just 20 minutes? This is about the maximum length for a TED talk, and with very good reason. The time frame is roughly correlated to our attention span. Given a tight time frame and an overwhelming amount of data, what do you do?
Well, the mistake many of us make is to try to cram in the maximum amount of content. We create data-dense slides and we push the limits to ensure we don't miss any important facts. A better approach is to work out the central idea. Define what you want your audience to take away and then work within the boundaries of the time permitted, with awareness of your audience's engagement, and hit the right note. After all, rushing or over-stuffing a presentation will only confuse and overwhelm your audience. This would ultimately be a waste of time.
Pace is cleverly used here to allow the listener time to assimilate the information. Brown also uses her pauses to connect with people in the audience. She makes eye contact and uses facial expressions that imply she is having a conversation. It feels natural and complements the familiar tone used throughout.
The close to 55 million views this talk has generated can be justified by interesting content — but it is greatly enhanced by Brené Brown delivering it with such care and compassion.
There are people who take it amiss — and I can understand that in a sense — that, for instance, I can still laugh.
Hannah Arendt
Hannah Arendt
Philosopher and writer
B: 14 October 1906, Linden - Mitte, Hanover, Germany
D: 4 December 1975, Upper West Side, NY, United States
What remains? The language remains
When: 1964
Where: West Germany
Audience: Television interview
Hannah Arendt was a German-born Jewish political theorist with first-hand experience of anti-semitism and the Nazi regime, from before and during World War II. Fleeing Germany in 1933 (the year Adolf Hitler came to power), she settled first in Paris and then in New York. During her time in the United States, she continued to develop her philosophical theories, with an interest in totalitarianism, war and revolution. Her work helps sharpen the perspective of the concept of evil, bringing it down to the complicity that exists at an individual level. As an example of this, she once said in an interview with the New Yorker, ‘It is well known that the most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.'
In 1961 Hannah Arendt was commissioned by the New Yorker magazine to report on the trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was a Nazi official who, among other things, was responsible for the isolation of Jews into ghettos in the major cities of Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
Arendt's articles later culminated in the book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. This publication sparked a wave of protest, particularly with regards to her portrayal of Eichmann as a dull, unimaginative automaton — a ‘clown' — rather than the evil monster the world expected. Arendt also questioned the actions of some Jewish leaders associated with the Jewish Councils, arguing these leaders cooperated perhaps too readily with Eichmann and, without this cooperation, more Jewish lives would have been saved. These views attracted condemnation from many of her peers and even some of her friends. Arendt's views were sometimes misunderstood as providing a defence of the Nazi regime. Her theories illuminate the mechanics of evil regimes and the role of the individual in supporting the enabling infrastructure.
Amid the controversy, Arendt spoke out repeatedly in defence of her intellectual argument.
On 28 October 1964, she appeared in a televised conversation with German journalist Günter Gaus, which was broadcast in West Germany. This interview was conducted in Arendt's native