The is a thing called Ultraspeaking; they teach you to speak better; David Chapman wrote a positive review recently. Here are some quotes from their free e-book:
In the following chapters we’re going to tackle: 1. Why thinking is the enemy of speaking 2. How to use your brain’s autocomplete feature to answer difficult questions
As we often say: “The enemy of speaking is thinking about speaking.”
Well, as counterintuitive as it may seem, you must learn to speak . . . before you think.
This is provided as an example of a wrong thing to do:
On this particular day, Alex had been climbing the route for several hours and had reached a third of the way up the cliff when he set his foot on a precarious hold and immediately questioned his choice: Will my foot slip?
He was climbing without a rope or safety equipment of any kind. One mistake and he could fall to his death. After a few minutes of thought, Alex decided to turn back and climb down the mountain back to his camp.
Specifically, the wrong thing was not that he climbed the mountain without any safety equipment, but the fact that he realized that it was dangerous!
Here is an advice on writing your bottom line first:
There’s an incredible opportunity here for you. Ending strong is the low-hanging fruit of speaking under pressure. And it’s entirely in your control.
Another client noted an even more remarkable distinction: “I used to think ending strong meant coming up with a brilliant conclusion. But then I slowly realized that ending strong just means injecting energy and certainty into your final words. I notice that when I say my last sentence with confidence and enthusiasm, people respond especially positively.”
Ending strong is more than just a mindset: it’s a surprisingly simple and effective way to leave a strong lasting impression.
*
Hey, I know that this is supposed to be about System 1 vs System 2, and that you are supposed to think correctly before giving your speech, because trying to do two things at the same time reduces your performance. (Well, unless someone asks you a question. Then, you are supposed to answer without thinking. Hopefully you did some thinking before, and already have some good cached answers.)
But it still feels that the lesson could be summarized as: “talk like everyone outside the rationalist community does all the time”.
EDIT:
This also reminds me of 1984:
It was not the man’s brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words but it was not speech in true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness like the quacking of a duck.
The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of consciousness. For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets.
Specifically, the wrong thing was not that he climbed the mountain without any safety equipment, but the fact that he realized that it was dangerous!
That does not seem like a good summary. He knew beforehand that it was dangerous and knew it afterhand. The problem that was him not being focused on climbing while pursuing a goal where being focused on climbing is important to be successful.
But it still feels that the lesson could be summarized as: “talk like everyone outside the rationalist community does all the time”.
No. People not listening to other people and instead thinking about what they will say next is something that normal people frequently do.
But it still feels that the lesson could be summarized as: “talk like everyone outside the rationalist community does all the time”.
If non-rationalist people knew it all along, there wouldn’t be need to write such books.
On the other hand, I think if average rationalist person tries to say speech from pure inspiration, the result is going to be weird. Like, for example, speech of HJPEV before the first battle. HJPEV got away with this, because he has reputation of Boy Who Lived and he already pulled some awesome shenanigans, so his weird speech got him weirdness points instead of losing them, but it’s not the trick average rationalist should try on first attempt to say inspiring speech.
If non-rationalist people knew it all along, there wouldn’t be need to write such books.
I guess a more careful way to put this would be that they talk like this all the time in private, but when giving a speech, most of them freeze and try to do something else, which is a mistake. They should keeping talking like they usually do, and I suppose the course is teaching them that.
With rationalists, it is a bit more complicated, because talking like you normally do is not the optimal way to do speeches.
Something to trigger the rationalists:
The is a thing called Ultraspeaking; they teach you to speak better; David Chapman wrote a positive review recently. Here are some quotes from their free e-book:
This is provided as an example of a wrong thing to do:
Specifically, the wrong thing was not that he climbed the mountain without any safety equipment, but the fact that he realized that it was dangerous!
Here is an advice on writing your bottom line first:
*
Hey, I know that this is supposed to be about System 1 vs System 2, and that you are supposed to think correctly before giving your speech, because trying to do two things at the same time reduces your performance. (Well, unless someone asks you a question. Then, you are supposed to answer without thinking. Hopefully you did some thinking before, and already have some good cached answers.)
But it still feels that the lesson could be summarized as: “talk like everyone outside the rationalist community does all the time”.
EDIT:
This also reminds me of 1984:
That does not seem like a good summary. He knew beforehand that it was dangerous and knew it afterhand. The problem that was him not being focused on climbing while pursuing a goal where being focused on climbing is important to be successful.
No. People not listening to other people and instead thinking about what they will say next is something that normal people frequently do.
If non-rationalist people knew it all along, there wouldn’t be need to write such books.
On the other hand, I think if average rationalist person tries to say speech from pure inspiration, the result is going to be weird. Like, for example, speech of HJPEV before the first battle. HJPEV got away with this, because he has reputation of Boy Who Lived and he already pulled some awesome shenanigans, so his weird speech got him weirdness points instead of losing them, but it’s not the trick average rationalist should try on first attempt to say inspiring speech.
I guess a more careful way to put this would be that they talk like this all the time in private, but when giving a speech, most of them freeze and try to do something else, which is a mistake. They should keeping talking like they usually do, and I suppose the course is teaching them that.
With rationalists, it is a bit more complicated, because talking like you normally do is not the optimal way to do speeches.