President Phrase Master
President Obama’s words have impressed many, but it’s his silences that have cemented his oratorical preeminence. This is especially clear when you compare his speech to Congress to Governor Jindal’s response.
One of the clearest marks of a good speaker is the amount, duration and placement of pauses. Ironically, these silence, more than any other audible characteristic of speech, that underscore the poise, thoughtfulness, and careful construction of an expert speaker.
A rudimentary graphic representation of the President’s speech shows this. Pauses as consistently significant and well-placed as these give listeners a sense of confidence. This makes physiological sense as well—the adrenaline and other by-products of the fight-or-flight reaction that washes over us in public settings forces voices faster and higher. Speakers who are able to maintain a steady pace and tone have effectively coped with this surge of adversity.
Another benefit to pause-heavy speech is it’s simply easier to understand. Speech is unlike written language. Spoken language is a stream of sound that speaker’s have to divide up into words.
If you’ve ever misheard a lyric (“Baking carrot biscuits..” vs. “Taking care of business…”) you can understand how fragile speech is to being miss-divided. When a speaker consciously assists his audience in dividing up language, the net effect is clearer and effortless communication.
In contrast, the graphic representation of Governor Jindal’s speech is much more crowded and dense. The pauses more infrequent. The overall impression is that of a less confident speaker, less relaxed, and therefore less conversational and relatable. While we can certainly understand the Governor’s speech, it’s not nearly as easy to listen to or clearly constructed as the President’s.
Regardless of the challenges he and his policies may face on paper, the President continues to dominate from the podium.
UPDATE: Here are the speeches—you decide
Face to Face
You ever wonder why instead of the weekly presidential address being broadcast on YouTube, the White House doesn’t just send out an email? It’d be faster, more people could read it, and the ideas could be more complex.
Or why instead of a video greeting to Iran, didn’t Obama just order leaflets dropped over Iran, wishing them happy new year and well wishes? Again, more people could get the message.
Or, why do we still have a constitutional right to confront our accuser? Or, why it’s so important for big business deals or mergers to be sealed with a handshake or at a meeting?
At every significant stage of politics, our legal system and business, there is still no acceptable substitute to face-to-face communication.
Even in a society of Blackberry, Twitter, and YouTube, we still persist in getting together, live and in-person. When things get complicated or when the stakes rise, all other forms of communication fall short of the need to communicate face to face. This is such a fundamental need that the reasons for getting together are rarely articulated beyond phrases like “confront your accuser,” “see who we’re dealing with,” “look them in the eye,” or “have our day in court.”
It’s not necessary to completely understand the nuances of interpersonal communication to appreciate its persistent role in society. One only has to look around to the most important communications, where misunderstanding must be avoided at all consts, to understand that face-to-face communication entails much, much more than the words spoken.
Scientists have long tried to decode what goes on when we communicate in person. The most in-depth and currently famous authority is Dr. Paul Ekman His work has been popularized by the TV show Lie to Me. Essentially, Ekman has catagorized the expressions we make when we experience certain emotions. Bringing this unconscious process to light allows us to more precisely deconstruct otherwise inarticulable impressions like “there was just something about him I didn’t believe.”
Given the concrete reality of the signficance of interpersonal interaction and a growing calculus of its impact, I remain amazed at how infrequently speaking is studied or practiced. For some reason, we remain hesitant to consciously take control of this process.
Speaking, like any skill, is a physical process capable of exercise and development. The more one understands and is aware of the realities and nuances of communicating face-to-face, the more one can consciously harmonize what is being said with how it is being communicated. Without that awareness or ability, interpersonal communication is succeptible to unconscious signals that may or may not be helpful to the desired impression.
In a world in which the most important communications remain face-to-face, there is nothing more pragmatic than learning how to not only mean what you say, but how you say it.
UPDATE (3/24/09): The very next day I wrote this, I woke to learn that (a) Obama wrote an unprecidented op-ed piece in the New York Times about the Iraq withdrawal and (b) the second presidential press conference will be held tonight for a continued dialogue with the American people.