This week we’ll discuss the second of the 5 types of illustrations that you can use to convey your message–E<\/span>vidence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n If you do it right, evidence<\/strong> (facts and figures) can make you look more credible, more authoritative, and more intelligent.<\/p>\n On the other hand, I’m willing to guess that you’ve also been to that know-it-all’s presentation with so much information that you sat there with only one thought:<\/p>\n I don’t care!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Have you seen that know-it-all? Do you respect him more? or less because of all the evidence<\/strong> he spews all over the office?<\/p>\n I can’t possibly enumerate all the ways that you can do it wrong, but here’s three:<\/p>\n All of these problems\u00a0lead to mediocrity because of one simple fact:<\/p>\n The purpose of evidence is not to prove your POINT. The purpose of evidence is to prove YOURSELF.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let me illustrate …<\/p>\n Isn’t that what they taught you to do in school? Always reference where you got your information? Of course! You have to give credit where it is due.<\/p>\n The problem is, that the more you talk about other people’s expertise, the more other people look like the expert instead of you!<\/p>\n The point of sharing evidence is to prove YOURSELF — YOUR\u00a0credibility. Merely sharing evidence<\/strong>\u00a0for the sake of evidence<\/strong> can actually make you look worse. This is especially true is you have to consult your notes, read the evidence from a slide, or hesitate to “make sure you get it right.”<\/p>\n If you want to use Stephen Hawking’s research to prove your point, why should I listen to you instead of reading what Stephen Hawking says about it himself?<\/p>\n Don’t get me wrong–you can and should use evidence<\/strong>. Just make sure you are establishing your own credibility and not someone else’s.<\/p>\n A mediocre speaker shows a chart like the one above from the US Center for Disease Control<\/a> (CDC), then they begin to nearly quote the CDC numbers verbatim:<\/p>\n In 2010, a total of 2,468,435 deaths occurred in the United States. The first two leading causes of death, heart disease (597,689 deaths) and cancer (574,743) …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That’s the wrong way to do it because nobody actual cares about the exact number 597,689!<\/p>\n If you’re giving a speech on heart disease your goal it NOT to prove how many people die of heart disease, your goal is to prove that YOU know enough about heart disease to be trusted.<\/p>\n The actual number\u00a0is nearly<\/em> irrelevant. When you read other people’s information verbatim, all you prove is that you know WHO ELSE knows more than you.<\/p>\n All you have to do to retain credibility for yourself if make the information your own. MEMORIZE\u00a0the most relevant evidence, reference the source, but present it as your own knowledge.<\/p>\n According to the CDC, 24% of deaths are from heart disease. I know that if you include indirect deaths from other causes, it’s even higher …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n All that other information, and sometimes even the chart is just evidence<\/strong> for the sake of evidence<\/strong>, and will not help you.<\/p>\n Another EXTREMELY common mistake from mediocre public speakers is to present facts and figures as proof \u00a0in a logical argument that the speaker believes will convince the listener of some “thesis.”<\/p>\n Academics want the evidence<\/strong> for the evidence<\/strong> sake. Remember, though, everywhere else, your goal is not to make the EVIDENCE\u00a0credible, but to make YOURSELF credible.<\/p>\n There is a subtle, yet monumental difference between:<\/p>\n Academic: This research proves I’m not wrong<\/p><\/blockquote>\n and<\/p>\n Persuasive: This research illustrates my point<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The academic, in the interest of appearing\u00a0unbiased,\u00a0leaves open the possibility that he may be wrong, and\u00a0indirectly invites the listener to doubt. This may be a healthy approach in the scientific method, but it’s also why it takes decades for the scientific consensus to be overturned.<\/p>\n Most presentations require more inspirational, fast-tracked results. In science the researched assumes the truth of her position and tries to disprove herself.<\/p>\n The persuader assumes the truth of his position, and\u00a0illustrates it with confirmatory evidence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n There is a reason I call the proof an illustration, and not a proof. One approach assumes the presenter is wrong, unless he can prove the EVIDENCE<\/strong> is valid. The second approach assumes the SPEAKER\u00a0is right because THE SPEAKER knows the evidence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In most settings, you want the latter — because you are trying to establish your own credibility, not that of the evidence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It’s not about the EVIDENCE; it’s about the SPEAKER!<\/p>\n I don’t think I need to explain “information overload.” You’ve been there. You’ve seen it. You didn’t like it.<\/p>\n\n
Other people’s knowledge<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/michaelspeaks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/evidence-300x172.jpg\")
<\/a>The most common mistake I see from mediocre public speakers is including statistics, research, facts and figures from others.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/michaelspeaks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/m6208qsf-300x211.gif\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLogical Argument<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/michaelspeaks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Geometric_proof_manjula10thcentury-232x300.jpg\")
<\/a>If you are actually presenting an academic thesis or dissertation, this may be expected behavior, but in real life, business, or social settings, that type of academic presentation puts people to sleep.<\/p>\nInformation overload<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/michaelspeaks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/2868248691_465cb6a32f-300x300.jpg\")
<\/a>More information doesn’t make the SPEAKER more credible. You only need enough information to establish your own credibility, no more.<\/p>\n