Evaluation of a Speech by Philip K. Howard
Philip K. Howard is a lawyer from New York and writer of the books The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and Life With out Lawyers. One of his great issues is the manner wherein his country, the United States, has become paralyzed by the proliferation of laws and lawsuits, and by the pervasive threat of litigation.
In this TED talk, Howard presents 4 ideas for fixing the American authorized system. It is an excellent talk. Following the speech is my analysis of what we can be taught from it about public speaking.
So, what can we study from Howard about public speaking? In particular, what can we study giving a speech where our general objective is to persuade our viewers to agree with our place on a matter? Let’s take a look at what I thought were a few of the key elements of his talk.
* 0:30 - Howard states his objective proper up front: The regulation is a powerful driver of human behaviour, and the US must overhaul and simplify the law to launch the power and passion of People to deal with the challenges facing their society. Straight speak with the viewers at the outset is sort of all the time appreciated. They know your place and now it's as much as you to construct your case.
* zero:46 - He seeks out widespread floor with the audience early on by noting how the law has develop into a much bigger part of their lives in current years. In a persuasive speech, it is a good suggestion to start out the place there is settlement and transfer on to matter the place there may be, or could be, disagreement.
* 1:20 - Howard begins the primary of a number of tales that reinforce his point about the absurd state of the law in the US today. (Tell stories, tell stories, inform stories! You’ve heard me say it earlier than; you’ll hear me say it again.) And the primary set of stories are about the education system - something with which most individuals have direct experience.
* 2:50 - He returns to his thesis: We now have been taught that the law is the foundation of a democratic society, but in recent decades, the nation has change into a legal minefield and it has changed us (once more seeking frequent floor with the viewers).
* 3:10 - He goes into one other brief story, this time concerning the medical profession. Again, one thing with which people can relate.
* 3:25 - Howard offers an instance of how this seemingly uncontrollable web of rules has even snared him, once more establishing frequent floor together with his audience.
* 4:00 - He mentions an example of the loopy type of litigation within the US that we regularly read about. Now, the sort of litigation certainly helps his case. However does Howard try to use it? No. To the contrary, he downplays it, stating that these sorts of instances comprise a small minority of cases and will be simply addressed. This can be a sensible transfer on his half, for it heightens his credibility when he gets to his major level: These laws have changed American society to such an extent that folks now not be at liberty to behave on their very own best judgement; the result's a stifling of initiative and drawback-solving. This is a superb instance of focus in a speech. We often can not cover every point in our allotted time. We must prioritize. Sadly, most people fail to do so. They consider that it's better to attempt to cover the whole lot rather than concentrate on the primary points. As I inform the scholars in my public talking programs, “You need to resolve what your key message is and concentrate on it. If all the pieces is vital, nothing is important; if every part is a precedence, nothing is a priority.”
* four:30 - Howard asks, “So what can we do about it?” By this time he has set up the issue and begins to take a look at solutions.
* 4:55 - He introduces a terrific metaphor - looking at every drawback via a “authorized microscope”. It is one to which he exploits to maximum effect.
* 5:40 - “After all, that is Utopia. [pause] It’s a system for paralysis, not freedom. [short pause] It’s not the idea of the Rule of Legislation; it’s not the idea of a free society.” Nice line.
* 6:00 - The first proposition for change.
* 6:00 to eight:00 - He makes use of stories and statistics to support the rationale for the first proposition. Be aware the various fields from which the tales and statistics come: medicine; training; the setting; transportation; on a regular basis items such as espresso and fishing lures.
* 9:35 - Howard is just not afraid to speak bluntly: “People are acting like idiots.”
* 11:10 - The second proposition for change. And what an excellent opening line: “The challenge here isn't just one in all amending the regulation, as a result of the hurdle for achievement is trust.”
* eleven:forty five - “It drives us from the smart a part of the mind … to the thin veneer of acutely aware logic.” Nice line.
* 13:05 - The third proposition for change.
* 14:30 - The fourth proposition for change.
* 16:50 - “You may’t run a society by the lowest frequent denominator.” Nice line.
* 17:00 - The beginning of his closing call to motion - a shift in our philosophy.
* 17:20 - Be aware the efficient use of the triple “if … then” series, stated rapidly and constructing in intensity for effect.
* 18:00 - The emotional ending. Howard’s dedication and passion for the subject have been evident all through his speech. Nevertheless, the emotion in his voice for his ultimate few words was poignant.
* As a ultimate, basic comment, I believed that he sprinkled humour properly throughout the speech to assist lighten a critical topic.
How may Howard have made this speech even better? I've two suggestions.
* It could have been wonderful to see him deliver it without notes, or a minimum of with fewer notes. I appreciate that he had plenty of materials to cowl, nevertheless it appeared that, now and again, he slowed up when he had to discuss with his notes. Not having to hold his papers would also have allowed him to gesture far more effectively. When he spoke without taking a look at his papers (which was more often than not) he was extremely participating and persuasive.
* He stood in one place the entire time. That could be a shame. He had a wide stage and will have used it. Properly timed, purposeful motion engages an audience. Shifting about would also have allowed Howard to work together more with the individuals sitting alongside the sides of the auditorium.
My options, nonetheless, do not detract from the fact that this was a wonderful speech delivered by a speaker who spoke passionately and eloquently on a subject of nice importance. As a lawyer myself, I discovered it particularly shifting and I agree wholeheartedly with Howard’s widespread sense approach to a major problem.
In this TED talk, Howard presents 4 ideas for fixing the American authorized system. It is an excellent talk. Following the speech is my analysis of what we can be taught from it about public speaking.
So, what can we study from Howard about public speaking? In particular, what can we study giving a speech where our general objective is to persuade our viewers to agree with our place on a matter? Let’s take a look at what I thought were a few of the key elements of his talk.
* 0:30 - Howard states his objective proper up front: The regulation is a powerful driver of human behaviour, and the US must overhaul and simplify the law to launch the power and passion of People to deal with the challenges facing their society. Straight speak with the viewers at the outset is sort of all the time appreciated. They know your place and now it's as much as you to construct your case.
* zero:46 - He seeks out widespread floor with the audience early on by noting how the law has develop into a much bigger part of their lives in current years. In a persuasive speech, it is a good suggestion to start out the place there is settlement and transfer on to matter the place there may be, or could be, disagreement.
* 1:20 - Howard begins the primary of a number of tales that reinforce his point about the absurd state of the law in the US today. (Tell stories, tell stories, inform stories! You’ve heard me say it earlier than; you’ll hear me say it again.) And the primary set of stories are about the education system - something with which most individuals have direct experience.
* 2:50 - He returns to his thesis: We now have been taught that the law is the foundation of a democratic society, but in recent decades, the nation has change into a legal minefield and it has changed us (once more seeking frequent floor with the viewers).
* 3:10 - He goes into one other brief story, this time concerning the medical profession. Again, one thing with which people can relate.
* 3:25 - Howard offers an instance of how this seemingly uncontrollable web of rules has even snared him, once more establishing frequent floor together with his audience.
* 4:00 - He mentions an example of the loopy type of litigation within the US that we regularly read about. Now, the sort of litigation certainly helps his case. However does Howard try to use it? No. To the contrary, he downplays it, stating that these sorts of instances comprise a small minority of cases and will be simply addressed. This can be a sensible transfer on his half, for it heightens his credibility when he gets to his major level: These laws have changed American society to such an extent that folks now not be at liberty to behave on their very own best judgement; the result's a stifling of initiative and drawback-solving. This is a superb instance of focus in a speech. We often can not cover every point in our allotted time. We must prioritize. Sadly, most people fail to do so. They consider that it's better to attempt to cover the whole lot rather than concentrate on the primary points. As I inform the scholars in my public talking programs, “You need to resolve what your key message is and concentrate on it. If all the pieces is vital, nothing is important; if every part is a precedence, nothing is a priority.”
* four:30 - Howard asks, “So what can we do about it?” By this time he has set up the issue and begins to take a look at solutions.
* 4:55 - He introduces a terrific metaphor - looking at every drawback via a “authorized microscope”. It is one to which he exploits to maximum effect.
* 5:40 - “After all, that is Utopia. [pause] It’s a system for paralysis, not freedom. [short pause] It’s not the idea of the Rule of Legislation; it’s not the idea of a free society.” Nice line.
* 6:00 - The first proposition for change.
* 6:00 to eight:00 - He makes use of stories and statistics to support the rationale for the first proposition. Be aware the various fields from which the tales and statistics come: medicine; training; the setting; transportation; on a regular basis items such as espresso and fishing lures.
* 9:35 - Howard is just not afraid to speak bluntly: “People are acting like idiots.”
* 11:10 - The second proposition for change. And what an excellent opening line: “The challenge here isn't just one in all amending the regulation, as a result of the hurdle for achievement is trust.”
* eleven:forty five - “It drives us from the smart a part of the mind … to the thin veneer of acutely aware logic.” Nice line.
* 13:05 - The third proposition for change.
* 14:30 - The fourth proposition for change.
* 16:50 - “You may’t run a society by the lowest frequent denominator.” Nice line.
* 17:00 - The beginning of his closing call to motion - a shift in our philosophy.
* 17:20 - Be aware the efficient use of the triple “if … then” series, stated rapidly and constructing in intensity for effect.
* 18:00 - The emotional ending. Howard’s dedication and passion for the subject have been evident all through his speech. Nevertheless, the emotion in his voice for his ultimate few words was poignant.
* As a ultimate, basic comment, I believed that he sprinkled humour properly throughout the speech to assist lighten a critical topic.
How may Howard have made this speech even better? I've two suggestions.
* It could have been wonderful to see him deliver it without notes, or a minimum of with fewer notes. I appreciate that he had plenty of materials to cowl, nevertheless it appeared that, now and again, he slowed up when he had to discuss with his notes. Not having to hold his papers would also have allowed him to gesture far more effectively. When he spoke without taking a look at his papers (which was more often than not) he was extremely participating and persuasive.
* He stood in one place the entire time. That could be a shame. He had a wide stage and will have used it. Properly timed, purposeful motion engages an audience. Shifting about would also have allowed Howard to work together more with the individuals sitting alongside the sides of the auditorium.
My options, nonetheless, do not detract from the fact that this was a wonderful speech delivered by a speaker who spoke passionately and eloquently on a subject of nice importance. As a lawyer myself, I discovered it particularly shifting and I agree wholeheartedly with Howard’s widespread sense approach to a major problem.
