discussion on avoiding rambling and or being too technical when talking about a special interest

[musicalman]

Hey everyone,
If you're giving a presentation about a special interest, or are trying to describe something really interesting to you, how do you stop rambling and or getting overly technical?

I once gave a speech for a communications class in college. I did my best to remove every technical term I could, and replace it with the most laymen one I could think of. I made note of points I thought were exceedingly important to cover so I wouldn't go off on a side tangent on something that only I cared about. But the professor still commented that it was too technical/in depth for a general audience. I got a decent grade anyway, but I was at a bit of a loss. I've never had a good perspective of a general audience though. And I sadly don't have any of my materials for the speech anymore so I can't give them another look, but I think I learned that using a topic with a tie-in to a special interest was not the best idea. Then again we were encouraged to pick topics we were personally interested in, so that's what I did lol

My trouble is, once I cut too much, it starts to become painful to keep going. I can simplify to a point, because after all I am not really an expert. There are things I can't articulate effectively and don't want to try because I will give myself a massive headache doing so. So then I make myself step back. But I can only do that so much before I feel I am not effectively able to communicate my point or idea. I guess it's because I am talking about an interest that tends to become fairly technical in nature, which I have spent thousands of hours with. I don't at all disrespect simplicity, just my perspective on it needs to be improved I guess. I know one thing, I have since decided that if I ever want to write tutorials or a presentation or something along those lines, I am going to ask for a sampling of people to read it before I officially share it with the intended audience. I can't trust myself to edit for simplicity or brevity on my own at the moment.

NO doubt some of you who peruse this forum have been in this situation too. What are your thoughts? What interests/areas do you think are most prone to having these sort of challenges, or is anything a fair candidate?

 

[MrSpock]

You seem to be assuming that there was something wrong with the way that you presented your idea. I wonder if your idea was too challenging for a general audience, no matter how you might go about describing it?

Brian Cox is a BBC presenter you may be familiar with. He does an excellent job of presenting science to the general public, makes it very accessible. He's also worked on CERN, and there are things he talks about in some videos which are not easy to follow for many people... and not part of the programming that he does for general audiences.

Richard Feynman was an outstanding presenter, his lectures are very highly regarded. They're a great example of something that's made very accessible by a master, but still not easy to follow, not for a general audience.

 

[Progster]

It's one of those things where you can't please everyone and you need to strike a middle ground - personally, I prefer more technical and detailed content than most lectures or explanations for the general public tend to give. Brian Cox, mentioned by @MrSpock above, presents it in a way that is too simplistic for my liking, I feel that I get a whole load of stunning images, but not much in-depth science and I don't learn anything new. I prefer the Horizon documentary series, as they assume a basic knowledge and give more detail, they seem to get the balance right.

 

[Autistamatic]

I think it's all down to your audience, their expectations and their willingness to go on a journey with you to greater understanding.
Taking Brian Cox as an example - I enjoy his shows because they cover topics I enjoy and have interest in, although he often covers things I have read and digested before. They make good "wallpaper" TV for me, but my wife, who isn't as scientifically inclined, finds him fascinating and is glued to the TV. His programmes are part documentary, part entertainment and are intended to be accessible to a broad range of abilities and ages. What he IS good at though, is conveying his enthusiasm for his subject, inspiring some of his audience to find out more. He also does a radio show on Radio 4 called "the infinite monkey cage" which is a comedy science discussion cohosted by a comedian. His role seems to be more to open the doors to scientific ideas and inquiry rather than to explain them in depth.
When you are writing or presenting, knowing how far your audience is willing to go is as important as knowing where you want to take them. In most cases the "taster" approach is best to start with but if your audience is already on the same page as you, or has some interest/foreknowledge on your topic, then going into greater detail or focusing on a particular aspect can work great.
I've been wrestling with this exact problem myself lately. I'm working on a video series about adult autism/AS and I want to reach both ASD & NT people, but that presents a series of challenges regarding my approach that have taken some deep thought. I will only know if I've got the balance right once they're out there.

 

[TheFreeCat]

-it depends on what level you're at. Graduate school requires this kind of in depth technicalities while perhaps undergrad not so much. Academic journals are very precise.

It also depends on what you're trying to accomplish. "Wallpaper TV", as the above poster described it, is not deep. In fact, it's hard to find a lot of tv that's deep.

I can see how an oral presentation would require dumbing down, but I am not sure how to tell you to do it. -

 

[Mr Allen]

Depends on the subject matter.

If you're talking technical about PCs, then to the majority of people you may as well be speaking Mandarin Chinese.

 

[musicalman]

Thanks guys for your replies.
Yeah, you are right that it highly depends on your audience and sometimes I easily forget how important that is, and how much variability exists between people and groups.

The name Brian Cox sounds familiar to me for some reason but I can't place him, and I feel like I should know him lol. I'll have to look him up, as well as Richard Feynman, and listen to how they present things. I love this sort of stuff.

Sometimes I am a little taken back by how not technical/not deep some people think. Not saying this in a disrespectful way at all, it's just something that contrasts so much with my own ways of thinking and so I've had to acclimate to it. My family for instance. When they try to use a computer, if the thing they want isn't on the immediately visible screen, they are calling me for help. They aren't interested in the reasons why it is the way it is, or getting to know the program better. I can't help but think about those things because they help me make sense of the things I interact with, but they don't think the same way. So I basically have to give them step-by-step instruction, which I don't mind doing, I just feel kinda bad because if this happens again will they be able to figure it out on their own or will I need to repeat the process? For a time I sort of believed it was up to me to make sure they were covered for next time, but now I know it is of course up to them.

I prefer technical documentaries. What's strange is that even if I don't understand the subject well enough to completely follow the documentary, I still enjoy trying to follow it to a degree. I always find something interesting. Of course if I am talking personally to someone or if I need to actually retain information, I will make sure the information is at a level I can keep up with better, but if it's just casually watching a documentary or reading an article, I don't mind getting in a little over my head.

I don't reject things that are simple. I have sometimes looked up x for dummies, where x is pretty much any random topic. I've read several articles that really made me feel like I was learning something, yet they made the topic easy to understand the essence of. I like them even better when they gloss over more complicated things or mention their existence and show how broad the field really is. That gives me some perspective I may not have had before I read. I admire those who can explain something in a few paragraphs that would take me a page or two. I guess it's a skill one develops through practice. And there's a time and a place for simplicity and complexity, so part of the skill is knowing how to set your sights for the situation at hand.

 

[Autistamatic]

Here you go - save you looking

Richard Feynman did an interview on BBC Horizon in 1981 (in conjunction with the book "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out") when I was a nipper and it totally changed my little world.

 

[musicalman]

Thanks autistamatic for those. I will be checking them out!

 

[Joshua the Writer]

I have the same issue. Whenever I talk to somebody on how something works on a firearm, let's say a forward assist on an AR-15, instead of saying, "It's a button you can wack to reload faster after an empty magazine," I'd give them an entire How it Works episode on the AR-15's forward assist.

 

[Bella Pines]

Yep, frequently.

The trick is to get inside your audiences heads and see the world from their perspective. It's not about replacing technical terms, it's about explaining the subject in a way they can understand. Drawing analogies from their lives. Try to paint them a picture or tell a story. And accept that you will only scratch the surface, but that might be sufficient.

 

[Tom]

The best gauge I have found is periodically watching the other person(s) and seeing if they are actively participating or checking out mentally. Most times you will find them going glossy eyed, not saying anything and just hoping you will stop. At this point you must drop it, and try and revive the conversation... two breaths and 15 compressions