Speaking/presenting to a crowd?

[Kyriakos]

Thank you, Azash, for the tips

Yes, i recall the lecturers in my uni moving along those lines. It still is a bit hard for me but it was only the second presentation ever..

I think a good route is to be based on a stable program/info you have prepared and know about, and then be relatively open to surrounding questions, without straying miles away from the actual set program. This gives it a slightly more informal air, and probably is better for a library setting anyway.

 

[Kyriakos]

Btw, small self-celebratory post: the second presentation in the first library was rounded up an hour ago. It went very well... I am happy with that

More or less it went like i wanted it to, so this is good for me since it is only the third presentation i ever gave.

 

[Borachio]

Here's the stock questions: What went well? What went badly? What could you do to improve it?

 

[Kyriakos]

Here's the stock questions: What went well? What went badly? What could you do to improve it?

The flow of the presentation was (without being 'perfect' or near perfect) quite good, to the point that after half of it i could very easily sum up previous parts briefly if needed so as to introduce the focus on following parts. The people seemed interested (some told me so themselves later on). Questions were few, but this was not to be attributed to problems inherrent with the presentation; mostly any more specific info was argued to be found more easily by each individual through borrowing library books on the issues, or even searching online. The main lines of the seminar's first circle were given in a very specific manner.

I would say that the first presentation was chaotic (only 20-30 min was a bit good), the second was quite decent, and the third was surely (in my view) considerably above the point that i would be already content with, at least for this circle (in the program there is a second circle, but that is in September).

In general it helps me to view the seminar presentations as a bit like a story work, with some central themes, allusions to names and eras outside of the lines presented, an overarching form and shape of juxtapositions (eg Ionian, Eleatic and Abderan, synthesised to the sophists, in general) and also a bit of an iteration of all that in my note that the creation of such specific viewpoints and a progression is itself an outcome of the sources (eg Diogenes Laertius, Aristotle, Simplicius etc) and my own decisions, and is not bound to be the only one, but is useful as a tool so as to make the examination of two centuries (7th-5th BC) less chaotic

 

[downtown]

I've been doing this every few weeks for a couple of years now, thanks to my work and church responsibilities. I think Warmonger gave by far, the best advice here.

Simply knowing your material down cold does not make an engaging public speaker. The single most important tip I think that could be imparted would be to be sure that you are *speaking*, and not *reading* to your audience. Don't read your entire remarks. Don't read your powerpoint. Make eye contact, project your voice, and speak slowly and conversationally, not quickly or in a monotone.

Also, don't forget to smile!

It very much gets easier with practice though. Good luck!

 

[Kyriakos]

I agree

I virtually don't read anything. I had a text up to now (that i prepared, 5 pages) and was looking here and there, but it is more practical to have notes (main stuff to be elaborated on), and if needed also the text if all else fails. I'll do that from now on given the basic plan of the seminar is noted down already.

 

[.Shane.]

Congrats!

Remember, the first rule is knowing who your audience is. Shape the information/presentation to the needs, requirement, limitations, expectations of your audience.

In my job I sometimes have to present the same basic information to very different groups of people. How I present information to end users versus developers versus upper management varies significantly!

Ditto w/ teaching (Teach JC part/time). The level of information, depth, etc... that you give in, say, a general survey class vs an upper level class is very different.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Thanks I did try to do that in the first ever presentation, but because this is not a university class but a semi-formal (municipal library program) seminar circle, i cannot really do much in regards to the people there, since some are bound to be alienated by the program nomatter how it is set.
I decided to have very specific info on the history of philosophy in its first two aeons (7th-5th), ie up to the time of Socrates (in the first circle of the seminar). So some known names, some less known names, some specific ideas (eg origins of the cosmos, definite vs indefinite origin, human perspective/anthropocentrism in the sophists like Protagoras, some overall general view of the math of those early centuries tied to the same thinkers/philosophers, etc).

Some do feel alienated. But overall most of the people in the two last presentations seem quite interested

It is a program currently with two classes, of 25 (different) people each.

 

[Kyriakos]

2nd presentation in the 2nd library, some hours ago..

Well.. it was ok, probably slightly better than the first presentation there, and probably a bit less interesting (for the people there) than my second presentation in the first library (with a different subject then; the Milesians), last week.

Mainly due to:

-I ended up only researching/creating the main piece for the presentation in 1 1/2 days. Mostly out of boredom but also the sense that i already had enough to present and i am sort of used by now to speaking to a crowd (the latter is true, i had no problems presenting, but the material was sub-optimal this time)

-The presocratic philosophers this time were only the Eleatics (Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno) and little has survived from their work (a few sentences from the first, 130 poem lines from the second, 9 paradoxes and some epigrams from the third).

-The main centers of the Eleatic thought are less easy to present in an hour, to such a crowd (around 20-25 people, but not of a common educational background or known background in philosophy anyway), cause the main eleatic ideas are far more 'mystical' than the ionian ones presented in the previous seminar. Basically some strange stuff about a united, unchanged 'Oneness' of a universe/god, which is in the shape of a sphere cause it extends equally to all directions since it is pretty much self-sufficient and has nothing around it but an undefined space (ie it is not infinite in space, since it has something around it, but it is still argued to be infinite in layers).

-The biggest problem was (i knew it would be) that the eleatics were regarded as of huge importance in the Socratic era. For example Plato named Parmenides as the father of the Socratic/Platonic ideas. Furthermore Democritos wrote his (massive, supposedly, but little remains) work as a direct contrast to the Eleatic idea of "nothingness" and also the famous notion of "vacuum" ("κενό"). So i tried a bit to present the infinite sets which when added lead to a specific limit to something (eg 1+ 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +... almost equals 2, but only in an infinite parts of the progression, so is a limit, not something stable), cause it served as a basis to juxtapose the Zenonian idea of an impossibily of stopping infinite division of space, to the Democritian idea of the "Atom", which literally meant "un-divisible", and was proposed exactly so as to stop the division of something (eg matter) at a set point, so as to cancel the eleatic theory that due to infinite layers of divided mass there can only be one stable existence, for if anything actually changed then that would require the sub-parts to also be definitely changing at some set (even at an abyss) point in the division.

But yeah, it is somewhat impossible to present this crucial issue in presocratic philosophy (start of the 5th century now) without at least using examples from Archimedes and his own use of the notion of infinity, around two centuries later (but he famously was providing examinations on Zeno's paradoxes).

*

So, overall, i was not happy with the presentation today. I am always friendly there, and the people seem decent too, but it is very unrealistic to present this "overview of pre-socratic philosophy" in 4 1-hour meetings. I know that, and i also discussed this with them, and also i was unhappy that i sort of half-did the thinking on the presentation of the actually crucial notion of infinite divisions, but whatever, the task cannot really be approached in a very much more ambitious manner, not in 4 hours, and not in a library setting..

So i guess i am ok with that, although i will try to do a better job in the two (times 2) next meetings of this circle

 

[Kyriakos]

A week later, and the first circle is nearing its conclusion, cause the third of four parts was just over in both the libraries yesterday and today..

I think it makes me more nervous by now, due to a mixture of relative apathy and sadness due to being so apathetic. This week's topic was Heraklitos and Pythagoras. First presentation was average i suppose. Second one (finished a couple of hours ago) was good until it deteriorated due to several reasons (mostly influx of people i had not seen there before, an old demand for a higher voice, someone leaving as i was still presenting, which seemed quite ominous..).

But i suppose overall the seminar circle is decent- anyway it is decent for what it supposedly is, ie a semi-formal library seminar on presocratic and then socratic philosophy.
I dislike things which are not more set, so the altering groups of the audience/discussion group (a core remains the same, but not all) cause a problem. I dislike public speaking at any rate, but having the bio info that i work in the libraries is obviously of use to me for other job prospects.

Still it is tiresome by now. The circle ends next week. The second one will begin in September, so that is positive..

 

[dusters]

It's rather sad that in order to achieve something you want, you have to do unpleasant things, Kyriakos.

I do hope you can at least always choose the topics for these presentations, so at least you can speak about things you love, so the time passes quicker.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

As others say, practice is important.

Another thing I'd like to stress is that preparation is also very important! If you are allowed to have Powerpoint slide shows, overhead slides, or even a white/blackboard, then you should definitely take full advantage of it.

These materials can help organize your thoughts as well as those of your audience. A few choice lines of words and a couple of well-chosen pictures can go a long way in driving your ideas through the audience. And of course, there's a whole science behind choosing the content.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thank you both!

It is indeed always a problem when one does something out of calculations of supposedly (or likely) managing to get to something else. It's one of the main issues i have with this seminar work.

Other than that... the last presentation was a bit taxing cause i virtually spoke for the whole duration (1 hour). Some participation, questions or discussion, make things far easier.

It also has to be noted that indeed i sort of gave up on preparing more stuff, cause i rely on my brief texts of the presentation- which i tend to complete a day before it, another bad idea. Those texts are 19 pages now for the 3 weeks. While the material may be enough for 3 hours (and finally four) it still annoys me that it is highly difficult to just present things to an audience which is not inherently tied to the subject (eg is not in some university philosophy course, or similar), cause i always tend to think that i must be very cautious to not forward myself as some sort of 'authority' on such a vast subject as the connections between the prosocratics, but mostly be someone who presents a synopsis of those 250 years in philosophy (in 4 hours :/ ) and provided hopefully some cause for the people there to find out what in those eras seems interesting to them to further read about.

At least some mentioned that they did just that, for example a couple read more on their own about Democritos, after the previous presentation.

I am invited to the library party for those giving the seminars, in a few days, so that surely will be a less taxing experience cause for once i won't have to be there as someone who keeps balances in what he says or presents

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Being able to grab the attention of the general public is a key objective in many presentations and seminars, especially in introductory courses where many students are taking different subjects as electives.

As for preparation, it's up to you. I've suffered enough from ill-prepared presentations that I always make sure I have a twice-reviewed .ppt in an USB stick when I walk on stage.

 

[Kyriakos]

The 8th part of the second circle of my seminar just ended in the first library. In two days it will have ended for the other one as well... I think it did get to a decent level, at least for the last 7 or 8 presentations (ie 4 in each library). I have by now been presenting the parts of this for something like 26 hours, and started some months ago...

I am happy with how it went. Some people seem interested enough so as to allow for a possible third circle in the future, and for the time being the circles will be presented in some form or other in a third library, starting in January of 2015.

Personally what i always dislike is being treated as a 'teacher'. I always note that i do not view library seminars as 'lessons'. Furthermore i would never wish to do something of this kind in a university setting (not that my 3-year BA by itself allows it, technically; afaik one needs at least also a 1-year MA to be hired as a speaker in a uni, although anyone can be a guest speaker in some setting or other).

I think that public speaking, to groups normally up to 15 people, can be workable, although my interests are not really in this. I would not say no to an offer by the organisations there- or similar ones- for a paid seminar, but i still am worried that the 120 pages i wrote for this program are likely way too kyriakic in nature, so a very over-analytic view of actually not very many different primary notions. The seminar is on the presocratics, plato/socrates and then immediate age (eg Aristotle a bit, and Epicurus), apart from the secondary sources such as Diogenes Laertius, Plotinus and Simplicius.

I am not very much a person who wishes to take a spotlight. So it is strange that it seems that some people are very interested in this seminar/presentations.

Worst thing that can be done is to have someone present stuff not backed by the source material, or only epidermically related to those. Everyone can speak about his own views, but it is rather dumb to have people listening to stuff which is not at least set in some field they can examine themselves, as a sort of overall synopsis of it...