The Worst Mistake I See Speakers Make

Today, I want to talk about the worst mistake I see speakers make. I call it the worst mistake because it is so easy to fix that it drives me crazy when I see it. And if you make this mistake, it can have a huge impact on your presentation. This can be the difference between a standing ovation or a slow-clap bomb.

But before I get to that, you need some context. Don’t worry. This is all relevant, and by the end, you will see why I couldn’t properly explain how to avoid this mistake up front.

The Zeigarnik Effect

Have you ever heard of the Zeigarnik Effect?

Bluma Zeigarnik was a Lithuanian-Soviet psychologist looking at memory function and realised that interrupted tasks remained in memory far longer than completed tasks. The story goes that he was fascinated by waiters who could remember everyone’s order at the table, relay that to the kitchen and then return with the orders sometime later, giving the right order to the right person.

But when asked a little later, they could not recall the orders.

In my experience of bartending, I would take more orders as I was pouring or making drinks so that I could effectively serve more than one person at a time in a busy nightclub. But I rarely remembered the drinks if they returned to the bar. Whereas the bartenders from the US, who were used to opening tabs and didn’t get their tip until the customer was ready to leave, automatically remembered every customer’s order.

Open Loops

In speaking and in writing, we refer to these as loops. What great writers and speakers do is set up a story or even start telling a story and then get intentionally sidetracked, leaving the story unfinished. This is what we call an open loop.

The audience’s brain subconsciously requires the completion of the story. So, their brain pays far more attention as it wants to close the loop. It wants the satisfaction of the ending of the story. This is used by storytellers, comedians, copywriters, and filmmakers to keep the attention of the audience.

I used this exact process in episode #451 of The Chris and Sam Podcast without even thinking about it.

The podcast is not scripted, and we opened with me talking about a trip up North with a friend, Adam, to go to a film event. Adam mentioned that the film Jaws had traumatised a generation of people regarding going to the beach. I agreed and asked if I’d ever told him my “Jaws” story. He laughed and said no, and he’d listened to every episode of the podcast, and I had never told that story.

At this point, my co-host Sam butts in and says, “No, you have never told that story.” So I replied that I was amazed that I hadn’t shared it, but I would tell the story at the end of the episode.

That wasn’t planned. But I have been doing this for a long time, and I also know that the story would be a good laugh and a positive one for the listeners. I also wanted to talk briefly about the Israel-Hamas war that broke out since the last episode, which is a downer to talk about.

Regardless, I am willing to bet that the completion rate of listeners who listen to the entirety of the 30-minute podcast episode will be higher for this episode than for many of our other episodes. Simply because the Jaws story was so strongly presented right at the beginning.

Closing the Loop

One common mistake many speakers make (not the worst mistake, but we will get to that) is that they fail to close the loop. They start a story or make reference to something that is never resolved. Which often results in the audience feeling a sense of loss or dissatisfaction at the end of the presentation. -And they don’t even know why.

If I had failed to tell my Jaws story at the end of the episode, it would have disappointed listeners and would be far worse than if I hadn’t mentioned it at all. As it was, Sam would not let me finish without telling the story.

This is because the brain releases a hit of dopamine when a problem is solved. And the brain sees all stories as problems. This is why, when fully engaged with a story, we cannot help but think about what we would do in that situation. When a satisfactory conclusion is reached, we are rewarded with dopamine.

Nested Loops

A more advanced use of loops is to create a loop within a loop. I refer to these as nested loops. You can have a series of loops within another or a loop within a loop within a loop.

The key is that you cannot close the outer loop before resolving the inner loop.

An example of this might be any number of Quentin Tarantino’s films. Often, his films are a number of scenes out of sequence, which often have a final scene showing at the beginning.

Opening with what appears to be a final scene immediately opens two loops:

1. What is going on here?

2. What happens next?

Then, the film will go back in time and show a scene that gives us some information to answer the first question. But each scene has its own loop and story to tell, and you are compelled to watch the scene just to see how it plays out. -A nested loop.

But why go to the effort? -Because, yes, it takes effort to pull this off effectively.

If done right, it is well worth the effort. Each loop close gives a release of dopamine. So, in the film example, a little dopamine is released at the end of each scene, which keeps the audience engaged.

But the best is when you have a sequence of nested loops within each other, and the keys are given to close them in a short but surprising sequence. Boom, boom, boom. The audience is hit with dopamine on top of dopamine like a wave cresting.

It results in a memorable feeling, which the audience often struggles to explain.

Callbacks

Before I explain the worst mistake speakers make and how you can overcome it, I should quickly mention callbacks and how they fit into the picture.

Callbacks are when a storyteller references something that happened earlier. This is often done with comedians who tell a joke, and the punch links back to an earlier joke. This has a similar impact on the brain because your brain makes the connection between the current element and the previous element, and you are rewarded with a hit of dopamine.

The difference is that callbacks are not explicitly set up. The audience is not looking out for them. It is the surprise discovery which creates the biggest impact on the brain.

I was on stage performing Improv a few weeks back. We were playing a game called “The Worst”. An occupation would be called up, and if we had an idea, we would step forward and act out the worst person of that occupation. “Surgeon” was called out, and I leaned over an imaginary patient, held out my hand, and said, “Nurse… wrench”. It got a bit of a laugh.

After going through a couple of other occupations, “Mechanic” was yelled out. Immediately, I stepped forward, miming looking at a motor, and said over my shoulder, “Hand me that scalpel”. It got a far bigger laugh than the surgeon joke did, and on the face of it, this was a much poorer joke.

It was the callback that made the difference.

It bonded the audience because they connected the two things in real time, and they shared that connection with the surrounding laughter, encouraging their own.

So, callbacks are also powerful. They are similar to loops but have slightly different use cases; ideally, both should be employed. But don’t overuse them.

The Worst Mistake

So here we are… time to close that loop.

The worst mistake I see people make is when they have a great hook or opening. It might be the first few words they say, or it could even be the title of their speech. And then they make the mistake of immediately giving the answer.

All that potential is immediately wasted. The dopamine hit is minimal because there is no pent-up desire to close the loop. It happened too quickly and was never referred to or teased before being closed.

It is the worst mistake because it is so easy to fix. And if just a little tweak were made to the presentation, it would be far more compelling. -It REALLY winds me up when I see it!

This would be like a comedian giving you the set-up and then the punch all in one go, spending the rest of the time telling you why that joke is funny. -It just doesn’t work like that.

The best way to use a loop is to make a strong opening, with a promise that will close the loop, and then work in the direction of closing that loop but keep teasing the actual close of the loop.

I have tried to do that in this piece so you can model it. But as always, there is no definitive right and wrong. The only failure is ignorance. If you know what these things are and use them in the way they are supposed to be used or exactly how they shouldn’t be used, then you can have a great effect.

You fail when you don’t even know that this is an option.

Let me know in the comments if you found this useful and when you have used loops or callbacks to great effect.

Note: If you hadn’t noticed, the headline image is a sort of an open loop of its own. It may be an example of what not to do, as I added it last minute, and there is no explanation or meaning. -How does that make you feel?

Snippets is a section where I take some interesting text I have come across in the previous week and comment on it.

In this section, I like to look at different language uses and how they impact our psychology. Today I want to broach a subject that is triggering for many people. It is an emotional subject, which is in part, why I want to address it.

The goal is to strip the emotion away as much as possible to look at the underlying structure of what we are dealing with.

I am referring to the term anti-Semitism.

Firstly, I want to make clear that I am not saying this doesn’t exist. It certainly does.

However, this term, which I believe originated in a more academic setting, has created a life of its own. In almost any common use, the term could be swapped with ‘racism’, and the meaning is still intact.

But if you do this, you realise that although the meaning is the same, the feeling is different. Anti-Semitism is more pointed, more specific, and is therefore more emotionally charged.

I personally deplore discrimination of all kinds, certainly racism, including anti-Semitism, but I will never use the word anti-Semitism because it is a term weaponised by politicians and others who use it as a bludgeon to elicit a specific emotion and reaction.

This is an excellent example of the manipulative use of language.

Because it is more specific, it sounds worse. It has a greater emotional impact.

If I say I cut my hand or I sliced my palm open. Which sounds worse? The more specific one.

In the coming days of discussion about the terrible things happening in Israel, I suggest you keep an eye out for the use of this term in newspapers and television.

Consider why this term is being used and what manipulation is trying to be made. The use of this word does not negate the accuracy or point of the speaker, but it often heightens the emotion.

And it only works one way. Only one side can be anti-Semitic, whereas both sides can be accused of being racist. This asymmetry creates a power differential.

Again, I want to be clear. I decry the violence perpetrated by Hamas on innocents in Israel. That is terrorism at its worst, and there is never a justification. But I would decry that wherever it occurred and on whomever it was committed.

My point here is to be aware of efforts to manipulate your emotions by the use of language.

Unpacking Wisdom is a weekly section where I dive into a famous (or not so famous) quote and explore how this can apply to the Compelling Communicator.

The obvious takeaway from this excellent quote by Carnegie is that as a speaker or writer, you should “walk your talk” and avoid lecturing on things you have no experience in, which is, no doubt, good advice.

However, I want to go deeper into this quote as it relates to a narrative experience. The idea that we ‘pay less attention to what men say and more to what they do’ gives us a clue as to how we connect or fail to connect with our audience.

We have all had the experience of someone lecturing us, telling us what we should do and how we should think. I have never heard of that being described as a positive experience!

Instead, if you think back, I am willing to bet that some of your favourite teachers were those who told stories. Stories of their lives, stories of previous students, stories of great people from the past or stories from mythology that illustrated various lessons.

So, in addition to showing that you follow your own advice, make sure that you are telling stories of those who trod both paths: those who took the wrong road to their doom and those who followed the path to glory.

Because it is far easier for us to be engaged with a story, our minds love to problem solve, and they like to imagine us in that story. Our minds also try to finish the story before the speaker does. Each twist and turn of the story challenges the brain to figure out where this is going and keeps us engaged.

If you are writing a presentation, try looking at it with fresh eyes. Imagine if you were giving this talk to a ten-year-old. How long would you keep their attention?

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that adults have a greater attention span than a ten-year-old. Adults have far more things on their minds to distract them!

If you have ever entertained a child, you know that engaging their curiosity is key. It is no different with an adult, except that you can introduce more stakes and often make the puzzle more complex.

Don’t tell. Show. With a story or two.

What I am up to this week…

Professionally:

Have done some great research on the Cyber Security documentary and made progress with that.

Recreationally:

This weekend I am attending the 24 hour movie marathon in Auckland.

What I am reading:

I finished Money: Master the Game by Tony Robbins, and for fun, I started listening to Harry Harrison’s The Stainless Steel Rat is Born.

What I am watching:

I watched The Act of Killing, a documentary by Joshua Oppenheimer. It is confronting and disquieting, but I think it should be a mandatory watch.