Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xcde4c3db | Hacker News Reader

I don't know where the research on this would be, but I suspect this sort of thing is about exploiting an ingrained cultural association from leaders reading prepared speeches/sermons. No filler words => commanding/authoritative/confident/powerful.

I agree that it would probably get tiresome very quickly in regular conversation. It reminds me of a comedian who asked "Do you think Jesse Jackson talks like that at the dinner table?", referring to the "Baptist preacher voice" seemingly being Jackson's default voice when he's interviewed on TV/radio.

View on HN

Removing filler words from normal speech gives you clearer speech, not a sermon. Orators use far more tricks than avoiding filler. They speak loudly with exaggerated tones. They exude emotion. Oration is a performance, and for most people it does not come naturally.

It's easy to see the difference with examples. A good example of clear speech is Sam Harris. Even when debating contentious topics, he speaks in calm paragraphs.[1] I could imagine Harris behaving the same in a one-on-one conversation. Contrast that to his opponent, William Lane Craig.[2] If Craig spoke that way in my living room, he would appear insane.

Avoiding filler is necessary for oration, but it's not remotely sufficient. I think this app will improve people's ability to communicate, not bloviate.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg&t=3556

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg&t=4226

I often get the impression that Sam Harris is passively meditating when he speaks.

Though I listened to a 3 1/2 hour train-wreck of a conversation he posted on his podcast with someone who'd reviewed a recent book of his unfairly (in his opinion). He made a very strong effort to keep the conversation on track, and communicated as clearly as ever, but it didn't take long for the frustration to become clear to anyone who listens. My impression is, that as good a communicator as Sam Harris is, there's almost no way to salvage a conversation with a terrible communicator.

I usually have some latency between when someone says something and when I've finished running my "Am I about to say something stupid, pedantic, incorrect, boring, or cruel?" checks on my response. In my experience, removing filler words makes people think that you weren't listening to them or aren't going to bother to responding to what they said. I've had to deliberately practice saying "umm..." before speaking rather than just being silent while I thought about my response.

I do a lot of public speaking, presenting and demoing to audiences of various sizes, and am considered (by at least some people) quite good at this stuff.

My advice would be just stop and think when you need to. It's completely fine and you will convey the impression that you are a serious and thoughtful individual, which is good. You can show that you were listening and are about to respond entirely through your body language.

If you feel uncomfortable with that, there are a bunch of simple tricks you can use here and saying "umm..." is not a good one. One easy thing is to always ensure you have a glass/bottle of water. If someone asks a tough question and you need time to think, wait until they have finished their question, then take a drink of water. No-one thinks this is even slightly strange and it gives you time to think and make a considered answer.

Forgive the expression, but I usually take a multithreaded approach in those situations. For example, you could (probably) easily rattle off a meaningful but neutral initial response and, while you're doing so, run whatever filters you need to before you arrive at the meat of your response.

Let me seeeee ... weeeeeeell ... how can I put this? That sort of thing?

Almost, I failed to mention the reply should contribute something and not just be words for the sake of words though. Purely my personal opinion. Basic example of a borderline canned reply while I think:

Q: "Where should we host our service?" A[instant]: "Well, you have X, Y, and Z." A[afterwards]: "X has these features, but Y might be a better fit for you because..."

An easy one is just acknowledging that you heard the person. Mix and match: oh, ok, huh!, (rephrase what the person just said), I had/hadn't thought of that, cool, interesting, that's an option.

In a Q&A setting: "That's a great question."

It probably wasn't, but that phrase is friendly and buys time to prepare the actual answer.

> Removing filler words from normal speech gives you clearer speech, not a sermon. Orators use far more tricks than avoiding filler. They exude emotion. Oration is a performance, and for most people it does not come naturally.

I'm a bit confused. So if I understand you correctly, Sam is the one with clear, calm speech, but Craig is the praised "orator", yet he would appear "insane" in your living room. So which one do you think is the better speaker?

Take a look at Hitler, he played for the back of the room with not only dramatic (loud) speech but large gestures. He nearly conquered the world with his words. Content aside Craig's speech likely has a larger effect.

Oration tends to sway audiences more than plain speech, but I think it's a little dishonest. Hopefully, such tactics will fall out of favor as more people notice them.

>> Hopefully, such tactics will fall out of favor as more people notice them.

Oh you are way too hopeful. I've experienced so many times situations where I think "surely everyone is seeing through the speaker's BS" only to be severely disappointed.

I somehow was reading Sam Harris as Arron Harris (YC partner, hosts a podcast related to startups). He also speaks nicely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com