PSO TED Talk

TEDIDEASWORTHSPREADING

TEDIDEASWORTHSPREADING

Arielle GoldfarbPSO 1212

Jeff Hancock is an Associate Professor of Cognitive Science andCommunications at Cornell University. His primary study focuses on impressions and the use of deception in the digital age.

In his talk, “The Future of Lying,” posted November 2012, Hancock spoke of the prevalence of deception in various forms of communication, specifically when it comes to online and phone communication.

In his talk, “The Future of Lying,” posted November 2012, Hancock spoke of the prevalence of deception in various forms of communication, specifically when it comes to online and phone communication.

Through his research, Hancock found that overallpeople are less likely to lie using online communication, including emails and social networking, than they are in person or when using a phone.

To get his audience’s attention, Hancock opened with a reference to then

current news, the presidential election.

To get his audience’s attention, Hancock opened with a reference to then

current news, the presidential election.

Bringing up news that everyone was familiarwith and making a joke with it allowed the

audience to feel at ease and included in theconversation.

To get his audience’s attention, Hancock opened with a reference to then

current news, the presidential election.

Bringing up news that everyone was familiarwith and making a joke with it allowed the

audience to feel at ease and included in theconversation.

Hancock then broke the ice by asking the audience to demonstrate who had lied

that day by a show of hands.

Almost every person in the room raised

their hand.

Almost every person in the room raised

their hand.So what is it about online communication that makes someone less likely to lie?

According to Hancock, the human language developed as an impermanent expression.

According to Hancock, the human language developed as an impermanent expression.

Now that technology renders our words permanent, people are less likely to lie in online communication knowing they could be held accountable by their own recordings.

Dynamism rating- 4/5I would give Hancock a 4 out 5. He was dynamic andconfident, but he used verbal pauses a few times, and wasn’t as animated as other presenters. He also didn’tbegin with much of a hook, though his later tactics suchas audience participation and his surprising facts were very effective.

I found Jeff Hancock’s presentation effective due to his use of interesting facts, audience participation, and casual manner. He emphasized his points with humorous side-notes, and utilized the whole of the stage without seeming like he was pacing.

TO COMPARE:Both Hancock and Robinson were dynamic and charismatic. Both understoodthe importance of humor in presentations and the role it plays in keepingan audience attentive and involved.

TO COMPARE:Both Hancock and Robinson were dynamic and charismatic. Both understoodthe importance of humor in presentations and the role it plays in keepingan audience attentive and involved.

Both also have been involved in presenting in academia, and maintain

good use of eye contact, gestures, and minimal slides to get their points across.

TO CONTRAST:While Hancock and Robertson have a lot in common as presenters, they differ in their use of space, and how they approach and react to the audience.

TO CONTRAST:While Hancock and Robertson have a lot in common as presenters, they differ in their use of space, and how they approach and react to the audience.

Hancock walked the stage and maintained a dynamicpresence, while Robertson tended to stay inone place and use more hand gestures for emphasis.

TO CONTRAST:While Hancock and Robertson have a lot in common as presenters, they differ in their use of space, and how they approach and react to the audience.

Hancock walked the stage and maintained a dynamicpresence, while Robertson tended to stay inone place and use more hand gestures for emphasis.

Robertson also laughed along with the audience when he brought up a humorous point, whereas Hancock didn’t allow audience interaction to interrupt his flowof presenting.

SO WHO MADE THE BETTER PRESENTER?

The differences between Robertson’s and Hancock’s presentation styles were so minimal and subtle. I feel that good presentations boil down to knowledge of the subject, and passion in the presentation. Both Robertson and Hancock were knowledgeable and passionate, and used humor to lead their presentations with ease.

IN THE END, HOWEVER,I prefer Robertson’s style. He was humorous, entertaining, and he laughed along with his audience. The way he interacted with the audience made him more relatable and I found myself listening harder to his presentation because I liked laughing with him.

IN THE END, HOWEVER,I prefer Robertson’s style. He was humorous, entertaining, and he laughed along with his audience. The way he interacted with the audience made him more relatable and I found myself listening harder to his presentation because I liked laughing with him.

Comparing these two presentations showedMe the value of humor, and the importanceOf interacting with the audience whetherBy direct interaction or simply sharing a laughIn order to relate and keep attentions.