"I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English - it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don't mean utterly, but kill most of them - then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart. An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get rid of as any other vice."
- Mark Twain Letter to D. W. Bowser, 20 March 1880
Thank you Ted. I have to address a large crowd tomorrow. It's an important address - because being the occasion of my retirement, it is my last one. I have been fretting over what I will say. In my head I have drafts of a speech with just the right motivational words and phrases.
My whole being is resisting making a "speech". It's not me - not what I do day-to-day when I meet people. So, thanks to your column, I am tossing out my drafts. I will just sit before this large group of people who are my friends and just talk. I might even make it a two-way conversation. I can do that.
This comes at the right time for me. Long story short as I’m able to make it- I’ve only been writing for a short time , I’m just a guy from a Sicilian family where most were illiterate, or not articulate . My friend Jane asked me why I was writing on Substack , and she is an English Major. She mocks my “ folksy style”. I use Substack to try improve my vocabulary , spurred on by an intense study of general semantics . It’s only a few years since I knew of this pursuit , but I do know precision in language is important. I guess this is a great thing for me - no matter how many proofs I correct before I post, I can’t “escape “ a conversational tone. I feel a sense of ,… relief.
Ted, I can't argue about the instances of the change you have identified. They worry me greatly, however. I think this trend is linked to the notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Now offhanded comments, without evidence, have just as much credibility as the opinion of someone who speaks from evidence and/or experience. If we insist on a "conversational" tone, do we will not normalize decision making based on emotion, personal comfort and likability. I think we can see the outcomes of this idea already in the degrading of "elites". The result is a society wherein anyone can be the Cabinet head of the CDC. No qualifications required. Promoting a conversational tone is one thing but evidence and expertise need to be recognized. Particularly on topics such as military decisions, medical research, meteorological predictions, etc.
Not at all. Important facts and knowledge need to be explained VERY SUCCINCTLY AND CLEARLY. The more complicated the explanation the fewer are people who will understand it. And it was an "expert", can't remember her name, from the CDC that caved to pressure from the CEO of Delta🤦♀️ And she also caved to political pressure. Experts are human beings and are susceptible to the same mistakes and biases the rest of us are.
This is medicine… TY! The Socratic method asks many questions, stays curious and humble, seeks to draw forth and give voice to what is within each of us… relating.
Without doubt one of The Donald's gifts is winging it. Going "off script." The results were often cringe-worthy, but you know what, nobody cared. He was honestly, virtually single-handedly, reviving this ancient tradition. F-n incredible.
We can learn something from everyone. Fascinating people come from all walks of life. Instead of categorizing conservative values as 'red' or liberal progressive ideas as 'blue,' we’re all more nuanced than that. Joe Rogan taps into this complexity. Like him or not, people open up to him like a trusted therapist. I also enjoy Lex Fridman and Andrew Huberman’s conversational podcasts on science. But you couldn’t pay me enough to watch “The View” though 😅. Mayim Bialik has a nice podcast, too. Most people do not care about celebrity endorsement, pop culture, or what academia regards as the right candidate. At the end of the day, it’s Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. My state has a ton of Amish—they understood this without social media or political propaganda. Respectfully my opinions…at this point in time…not worth dying on a hill over. Things change. People adapt. We are resilient.
You fell for it. Right down to the misspelling that is a perfect affectation for anyone with a name that ends in consonant . Cavette for Cavett. He could be smart for all I know. Your comment is asinine!
Moreover, you miss entirely the essence of a podcast. T-I-M-E is not via Pay2Play sponsorship. Ideally it is determined by subject merit. We have no such analogue in our Pay2Play US of Asinine mass communications broadcasting system and the FCC that 'governs' it.
Socrates’ conversational method was impactful because it was underpinned by deep philosophical thought. Perhaps we can hope for the same from our current political leaders? Perhaps...
I think the conversational renaissance is a good thing for essayists and bloggers too. There's a glut of mic-drop thread boi advice-giving pieces online. People are growing tired of it and welcoming a more conversational tone. But even more importantly, for writers, being conversational in style (ie, turning assertions into questions, breaking the fourth wall, sharing unformed thoughts) means you can tackle subjects you're ignorant about, which IMO is the more exciting, urgent, and noble task.
Intention is something that hasn’t been exposed enough in recent times. Rogans show has a way of exposing underlying traits in personality that can help assess credibility and sometimes clarity in subject matter in people. A big mistake for Harris to be unwilling to let her guard down . Authenticity and human give and take is still attractive , popular, and necessary for leaders in our western culture. To the benefit of our society.
I basically agree but being a competent leader should not be about “authenticity” in the TV talk show sense. It’s like the old saw, “ sincerity is the key to success, once you can fake it you’ve got it made “.
Politicians or leaders shouldn’t have to be saints or best bar buddies and that’s seeming to be what many are looking for.
Intelligence, integrity and honesty should come before being “relatable “.
“Basically agree “ .., I’ll take that all and any day. Authenticity on any level of analysis seems to be primal in assessment of leadership. Harris missed a golden opportunity, in a wide reaching media platform , to reveal this, so more people could assess these characteristics .
My intent was to say he leads the way to sitting down and having the kind of conversations that help us get to know the person being interviewed. I’m not saying he is perfect in any way, just does a good job of creating good productive conversations.
Early on in my podcasting journey I realized that I was suffering from what I called “expert exhaustion.” I was tired of people speaking *at* me and delivering well-rehearsed monologues. Boring! Since then, I’ve only sought out guests that are willing to engage in spontaneous, authentic conversation…exploring ideas in real time rather than hide behind a professional persona. People who are promoting their work by going on podcasts should also keep in mind everything you’ve stated here.
This is what used to be called BSing and it ain’t new. Except for the “standing” part, Elmer Gantry (1960) was communicating in every way you say is new:
Could it be that talking heads have lost their appeal because they are actually airheads and there are so many of them they induce overload and boredom?
"I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English - it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don't mean utterly, but kill most of them - then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart. An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get rid of as any other vice."
- Mark Twain Letter to D. W. Bowser, 20 March 1880
Thank you Ted. I have to address a large crowd tomorrow. It's an important address - because being the occasion of my retirement, it is my last one. I have been fretting over what I will say. In my head I have drafts of a speech with just the right motivational words and phrases.
My whole being is resisting making a "speech". It's not me - not what I do day-to-day when I meet people. So, thanks to your column, I am tossing out my drafts. I will just sit before this large group of people who are my friends and just talk. I might even make it a two-way conversation. I can do that.
I am so bad at speeches but this worked at my wedding and I am quite proud of it.
This comes at the right time for me. Long story short as I’m able to make it- I’ve only been writing for a short time , I’m just a guy from a Sicilian family where most were illiterate, or not articulate . My friend Jane asked me why I was writing on Substack , and she is an English Major. She mocks my “ folksy style”. I use Substack to try improve my vocabulary , spurred on by an intense study of general semantics . It’s only a few years since I knew of this pursuit , but I do know precision in language is important. I guess this is a great thing for me - no matter how many proofs I correct before I post, I can’t “escape “ a conversational tone. I feel a sense of ,… relief.
To me , illiteracy and intelligence are not necessarily un aligned .
I never alluded to my family as not intelligent. As a fact, they survived quite well here in the USA
This is an example of a convoluted sentence that would never be spoken and i had to read it twice to get the sense.
Reading what I write at times , I grimace . I wish I had started earlier in life. What’s the cliche ? Better late ….
Hey, don't fret about it, we're all learning!!
Ted, I can't argue about the instances of the change you have identified. They worry me greatly, however. I think this trend is linked to the notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Now offhanded comments, without evidence, have just as much credibility as the opinion of someone who speaks from evidence and/or experience. If we insist on a "conversational" tone, do we will not normalize decision making based on emotion, personal comfort and likability. I think we can see the outcomes of this idea already in the degrading of "elites". The result is a society wherein anyone can be the Cabinet head of the CDC. No qualifications required. Promoting a conversational tone is one thing but evidence and expertise need to be recognized. Particularly on topics such as military decisions, medical research, meteorological predictions, etc.
Maybe you'd prefer the Cabinet head of the CDC to be tapped by the same people he or she is supposed to be overseeing?
Not at all. Important facts and knowledge need to be explained VERY SUCCINCTLY AND CLEARLY. The more complicated the explanation the fewer are people who will understand it. And it was an "expert", can't remember her name, from the CDC that caved to pressure from the CEO of Delta🤦♀️ And she also caved to political pressure. Experts are human beings and are susceptible to the same mistakes and biases the rest of us are.
"Socrates was the last major thinker to rely solely on conversation. After his death, his successors wrote books and gave lectures." What about Jesus?
Weren’t JC’s parables more like speeches than conversations? Indeed, the most famous one was The Sermon on the Mount.
There are conversations in the Gospels, too. Just not in the segments where the parables are recorded.
“Blessed are the cheesemakers.”
The beginning of John 3 where Jesus has a back and forth with the Pharisee Nicodemus is famously a conversation.
Jesus says, ", “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” "
But in the Greek, "born again" is the same as "from above". Because of the ambiguity, Nicodemus is confused and Jesus then explains more theology.
Better as a conversation than a sermon, imo.
Kinda the same thing right James? Outer circles and echoes of hierarchical truth?
This is medicine… TY! The Socratic method asks many questions, stays curious and humble, seeks to draw forth and give voice to what is within each of us… relating.
\(*_*)/ Ted is like a modern day H.G. Wells, taking us on a captivating journey through time, exploring the evolution of communication...
Without doubt one of The Donald's gifts is winging it. Going "off script." The results were often cringe-worthy, but you know what, nobody cared. He was honestly, virtually single-handedly, reviving this ancient tradition. F-n incredible.
I’ll take your comment in jest but please don’t suggest “that nobody cared”. His fans don’t care but they are not everyone.
Yes of course. You are right. Would take too many words.
We can learn something from everyone. Fascinating people come from all walks of life. Instead of categorizing conservative values as 'red' or liberal progressive ideas as 'blue,' we’re all more nuanced than that. Joe Rogan taps into this complexity. Like him or not, people open up to him like a trusted therapist. I also enjoy Lex Fridman and Andrew Huberman’s conversational podcasts on science. But you couldn’t pay me enough to watch “The View” though 😅. Mayim Bialik has a nice podcast, too. Most people do not care about celebrity endorsement, pop culture, or what academia regards as the right candidate. At the end of the day, it’s Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. My state has a ton of Amish—they understood this without social media or political propaganda. Respectfully my opinions…at this point in time…not worth dying on a hill over. Things change. People adapt. We are resilient.
The 90 minute Dick Cavette show was a precursor of the podcast. A smart guy talking to interesting people …. except George Harrison.
You fell for it. Right down to the misspelling that is a perfect affectation for anyone with a name that ends in consonant . Cavette for Cavett. He could be smart for all I know. Your comment is asinine!
Moreover, you miss entirely the essence of a podcast. T-I-M-E is not via Pay2Play sponsorship. Ideally it is determined by subject merit. We have no such analogue in our Pay2Play US of Asinine mass communications broadcasting system and the FCC that 'governs' it.
Tio Mitchito
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of Atonement Seekers)
Media Discussion List\Looksee
Socrates’ conversational method was impactful because it was underpinned by deep philosophical thought. Perhaps we can hope for the same from our current political leaders? Perhaps...
I think the conversational renaissance is a good thing for essayists and bloggers too. There's a glut of mic-drop thread boi advice-giving pieces online. People are growing tired of it and welcoming a more conversational tone. But even more importantly, for writers, being conversational in style (ie, turning assertions into questions, breaking the fourth wall, sharing unformed thoughts) means you can tackle subjects you're ignorant about, which IMO is the more exciting, urgent, and noble task.
Intention is something that hasn’t been exposed enough in recent times. Rogans show has a way of exposing underlying traits in personality that can help assess credibility and sometimes clarity in subject matter in people. A big mistake for Harris to be unwilling to let her guard down . Authenticity and human give and take is still attractive , popular, and necessary for leaders in our western culture. To the benefit of our society.
I basically agree but being a competent leader should not be about “authenticity” in the TV talk show sense. It’s like the old saw, “ sincerity is the key to success, once you can fake it you’ve got it made “.
Politicians or leaders shouldn’t have to be saints or best bar buddies and that’s seeming to be what many are looking for.
Intelligence, integrity and honesty should come before being “relatable “.
“Basically agree “ .., I’ll take that all and any day. Authenticity on any level of analysis seems to be primal in assessment of leadership. Harris missed a golden opportunity, in a wide reaching media platform , to reveal this, so more people could assess these characteristics .
Joe Rogan leads the way
To where?
My intent was to say he leads the way to sitting down and having the kind of conversations that help us get to know the person being interviewed. I’m not saying he is perfect in any way, just does a good job of creating good productive conversations.
Early on in my podcasting journey I realized that I was suffering from what I called “expert exhaustion.” I was tired of people speaking *at* me and delivering well-rehearsed monologues. Boring! Since then, I’ve only sought out guests that are willing to engage in spontaneous, authentic conversation…exploring ideas in real time rather than hide behind a professional persona. People who are promoting their work by going on podcasts should also keep in mind everything you’ve stated here.
Great phrase 'Expert Exhaustation' - captures perfectly how I feel!
This is what used to be called BSing and it ain’t new. Except for the “standing” part, Elmer Gantry (1960) was communicating in every way you say is new:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgRGofGNTM&pp=ygUMRWxtZXIgR2FudHJ5
Could it be that talking heads have lost their appeal because they are actually airheads and there are so many of them they induce overload and boredom?