Ernie The Attorney

On My Radar: Better Public Speaking Techniques

Lately, I've thought a lot about how conditioning tends to override our though process. We do things unconsciously (or with dim consciousness) that are counter-productive. If we could be more aware of these unconscious tendencies, we'd be better off.

For lawyers who go to court or make any kind of public presentations, there are a lot of unconscious movements. Paying attention to these movements and correcting them would be useful.

Recently, my friend Dane brought to my attention a book called The Articulate Advocate, by Brian Johnson and Marsha Hunter. The authors have studied the science of public speaking and they teach proper technique to lawyers. For example, every new Assistant U.S. Attorney works with Mr. Johnson at the Department of Justice National Advocacy Center.

I will report back when I've read the book, but as soon as Dane rhapsodized about it I ordered it from Amazon. Dane said he saw Mr. Johnson speak about the techniques in the book, and immediately ordered it. Dane said it revolutionized his approach to public speaking when he read the book two years ago.

Dane has always been an excellent public speaker, and frequently appears on television because the local media appreciates his quick but incisive commentary. When someone like Dane recommends a book on public speaking and says it's one of the four best non-fiction books he's read that book immediately goes on my radar, along with the book's authors.

The book is available on the Kindle as well, in case you want to order it that way. If you're hesitating to order  the book check out this short video where he explains the main premise of his book: being 'natural' isn't helpful in public speaking. He also addresses the common question: "what do I do with my hands?"

Trust me, if you're an advocate or a speaker this stuff should be on your radar too.

Learning & conditioning (and learning about conditioning)

How do you learn new things? When you were very young you learned a complex language without any formal instruction. If you wanted to learn a new language now, you'd almost certainly opt for some kind of formal instruction.

Many people who move to a new country just wind up picking up the language by trying to use it in everyday conversation. No formal instruction; just practice.

Formal instruction isn't always required to learn something powerful.

Learning a language is just one kind of learning. There a lots of things you learned as a kid without formal instruction. Some people keep learning amazing things, without formal instruction—even after they've grown up.

What if I told you there was an amazing trick that would let you remember all kinds of useful information that you currently have to use paper and pen (or some kind of digital device) to remember? Would that sound enticing or would you dismiss it as uninteresting or irrelevant?

Granted, we don't all have unlimited time and we have to make choices about what we spend time on—including learning. I get that. But, I also notice that sometimes we are driven to make (or avoid) certain choices. Driven, not by a mind that carefully considers options. Driven by deeper forces.

Have you ever stopped to think about the force that is called "conditioning"?

Humans are conditioned just as all animals are, even if we aren't conditioned in the same way or to the same extent. How much does conditioning govern the way we see the world? How much to does it shape what we learn, or even our inclination to learn new things?

The answer to that question might itself be largely shaped by conditioning. Of course, if you discount the influence of conditioning then there is nothing to consider. Only problem is: there's a lot of scientific evidence that our thoughts and beliefs are shaped by externally created experiences (i.e. ones that we didn't seek out, or consciously "choose").

Many people believe the effect of "conditioning" is negligible. Many people believe things just because many other people believe them. Beliefs are notoriously susceptible to conditioning.

Just because you believe something is true doesn't mean it is. What if your beliefs were strongly influenced (or possibly even dictated) by social forces? How would you know? Is that kind of self-awareness something you can learn?

Maybe. But you almost certainly can't learn it anywhere that provides "formal education."

Hmmmm, must not be worth learning then...

 

You have an amazing memory (if you know the trick to using it)

After reading Moonwalking with Einstein I decided to go back and start using the mnemonic memory systems I learned when I was a kid. When I was about twelve magic was one of my hobbies. Harry Lorayne was one of the magicians I heard about, and paid attention to.

Harry Lorayne wrote The Memory Book and revealed how he was able to memorize the names of two hundred people in an audience, and also an entire deck of cards. I had always thought that the systems Lorayne revealed in his book were unique.

Turns out, as I learned in Moonwalking with Einstein, Lorayne's system has been widely used for years. In fact, the most effective memory tricks have been known and used for over two thousand years.

I'm no longer interested in doing magic tricks. But I am interested in the memory tricks, because they have everyday, practical applications. For example, it's easier to memorize (once you know the secret) a shopping list than to write it down or put it in digital form. For those of you who know my propensity to use technology this may sound like a surprising statement.

How could it be easier to memorize a shopping list? What if the list contains ten or twenty items?

Trust me: if you know the trick (and practice it a little bit) it's easier not to have to fool with paper or technology, even for lists of twenty or thirty items. For one thing, I have to use reading glasses to see things I write down or put in my iPhone or iPad. So, from that standpoint alone it's easier. And what about when you find yourself at the store when you didn't plan to go, and thus don't have your written list with you?

So how do you learn the memory tricks? Well, you can buy any of a number of books. They all teach pretty much the same system. Dominic O'Brien was brought to my attention by Adrianos Facchetti, who uses the memory tricks in his law practice. I'm reading one of his books now, and can recommend it. However, O'Brien's books are harder to find.

Harry Lorayne's classic Memory Book, which he actually co-wrote with basketball star Jerry Lucas, is probably the easiest to find and use. Lorayne has another book called The Page a Day Memory Book, which is basically the same stuff he put in The Memory Book, except it is presented a little more slowly.

Most people think that they can't improve their memories, and assume that people like Lorayne and O'Brien are really gifted in some strange way. That's simply not true. They both readily admit to being poor students (until they discovered the trick to memorizing information). O'Brien dropped out of school when he was sixteen; since then he's gone on to win the World Memory Championships eight times. He once memorized the sequence of cards in 54 decks after looking at them only once. Needless to say, he's a proficient card counter and has been banned from pretty much every casino.

What Lorayne and O'Brien do is an extreme version of a simple trick that anyone can learn. It takes some practice, and no you won't be able to memorize 54 packs of cards (unless you want to practice a lot). But, for the every day stuff that you have to keep track of, it is easy to learn.

For example, it took me about 10 minutes to learn all of the U.S. states in alphabetical order. And it was incredibly easy, once I reoriented my approach to use my brain's natural power. Memorizing, as Moonwalking with Einstein explains in detail, is best done using the right brain. Brute force repetition is worse than just boring; it's also the wrong way to retain information.

Once you get used to engaging your right brain again (and believe me our modern style of life doesn't encourage this) you'll find that memorizing is easy. And, even in a world where we can outsource remembering to techno-gadgets, it's also incredibly useful.

The safe path isn't always the best path (even if everyone else is on it)

Here are words of wisdom for young people who want to go to college because it's safe, and "it's what everyone else does." Maybe you should consider starting a business and becoming an entrepreneur. Oh, but you're afraid of failure? Well, as the wise man says:

Failure is a part of life. Better to learn it at 18 than at 23 or older when you've been coddled by ivory blankets and hypnotized into thinking success was yours for the taking.

If you're afraid to fail you'll have a harder time learning the really important stuff. Success doesn't teach you much. And it only makes you feel egotistically good for a short time. College doesn't even give you a chance to find real world success. College is mostly just an expensive holding cell for people who are afraid to fail. But, since most people are afraid, colleges can charge a lot for those cells.

Movie recommendation: Cedar Rapids

Cedar Rapids is an outanding movie, and you should rent it on DVD today. Yes, Ed Helms plays the same lovable, dorky guy that you see in The Office and [The Hangover][hangoverlink] movies. But what makes this movie special is several things: (1) John C. O'Reilly, and the other actors, all of whom are perfectly cast; (2) the screenplay, and (3) the directing.

The screenplay, however, is the key to Cedar Rapids' success. Basically, the story is like Office Space: the honest workers versus the soulless corporate bosses. They're both funny, but Cedar Rapids is a more nuanced portrayal of this kind of story. The first time you see it (I've watched it three times already) you won't see any nuance; you'll only see the outrageous humor, and all the obvious stuff.

The movie works on two levels, and the subtle parts are the most interesting ones.

If you wind up watching it more than once (and there are few movies that I ever watch twice, much less three times) pay attention to the contrast between the "low-life characters" and the "upstanding characters." Notice how the upstanding characters are eventually all revealed to be deeply flawed, while the low-lifes and dorks turn out to be filled with integrity.

The moral is: it's better to be an honest dork or flawed prostitute than a greedy egotistical bastard. What an apt movie for the era of Enron, the Housing Collapse, and now the U.S. Debt Crisis. I wonder how many more cataclysms our upstanding leaders have in store for us?

Are we morons? Apparently, our "leaders" think so.

NBC news's Chuck Todd said tonight that there isn't that much difference between the Republican and Democratic proposals. The problem, he says, is that the Republicans want to have the next debt vote showdown right before the next elections. Okay, I get why they want that. I don't see how that helps the country, especially if this debt vote showdown is a preview of the sort of brinksmanship that will ensue next time. But I get the motivation. And I don't doubt that it's a major factor in the Republicans strategy.

I've given up on politics as a useful way to bring about meaningful change. Politicians and lobbyists are now too good at calculating every permutation of self-interest. And like obsessive teen-hackers, they spend all their time watching polls and running computer simulations.

The real world isn't even something they know how to pay attention to anymore.

I hope that Boehner and his group keep delaying things until it becomes obvious to everyone that what they really want is for the Democrats to be in the toughest possible position during the next elections. And I hope that our credit rating gets downgraded because of a delay in reaching a political deal.

The only time the politicians seem to get nervous is when average people feel pain, and start railing out. So, don't misunderstand why I say I hope our rating gets downgraded and we suffer as a result.

Obviously, I don't hope this for the sake our country. I hope for this because it seems like we still need to learn a lesson about following leaders who only think look for parochial, short-term "solutions."

The level of political discourse in our country is infantile. Politicians think we're ill-informed and easily beguiled. And, as much as I hate to admit it, they're right.

Paging Emperor Nero; bring your fiddle to Washington

From today's Wall St. Journal (subscription required to access link):

"On Aug. 2, the very day the Treasury may begin scraping around for cash to pay its bills, half a dozen lawmakers from both parties are hosting separate fund-raisers at a concert by country crooner Taylor Swift....Not long ago, lawmakers canceled fund-raising events when important votes made such efforts appear in bad taste.

"Not anymore."

And here's a passage from today's Politico's Playbook that describes Speaker Boehner's attempts to cajole his members into rallying behind his proposal (which it appears isn't going to get the requisite partisan support):

"With earmarks gone, leaders have fewer levers. So now members ask for committee assignments and campaign favors. Leaders say they try to stick to the high road: personal appeals, and the argument of “being part of a team that’s doing big things for the country ... moving toward the goal of getting the country back on the right path.”

Wonderful. We're watching watching pirates on a sinking ship trying to divvy up their plunder, except it's our sinking boat the pirates are pretending to pilot.

 

On My Radar - Meditation & Right-brain Thinking

Last Friday there was an op-ed piece in the Wall St. Journal (subscription req'd) by W. Scott Gould, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veteran's Affairs about the possible benefits of meditation in dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Here is a key passage:

"David Lynch and Norman E. Rosenthal pose a challenge for the [DVA]: "If a simple, low-cost technique like TM can substantially alleviate the suffering of even some of the thousands of veterans afflicted with PTSD, how can we afford not to give it a try?" In fact, Transcendental Meditation has received substantial attention at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health. Indeed, meditation and other forms of complementary and alternative medicine are already used at VA to help veterans suffering from PTSD. We have embarked on a series of clinical investigations to evaluate all forms of meditation, TM among them."

Think about this for a second: a federal bureaucracy like the DVA is seriously considering meditation as a beneficial technique for people with PTSD. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, except that I predict a large scale amount of entrenched resistance.

Nevertheless, meditation has been on my radar for a long time. I've practiced it on and off over the years, and always wondered (when I stopped practicing) why I didn't keep it up. It's clearly beneficial to me, and it doesn't require anything more than time and committment.

About a year ago I saw a documentary called The Dhamma Brothers and it made me realize that I was wasting a valuable (and easily accessed resource) by not meditating every day. So I started again, and have mostly kept it up (I miss a day or two here and there, but I try not to obsess about it).

Here is a synposis of the film, which is not overly-hyped. It's true, and it's powerful to see how meditation changed these people who are in jail for having committed some seriously horrendous crimes:

"An overcrowded, violent maximum-security prison, the end of the line in Alabama's prison system, is dramatically changed by an ancient meditation program. It becomes the first maximum-security prison in North America to hold an extended Vipassana retreat, an emotionally and physically demanding program of silent meditation lasting ten days and requiring 100 hours of meditation."

There is no doubt that the meditation program changed some of these violent men, and awakened them to the power of inward reflection. The meditation program wasn't easy. Basically, it was a lot like solitary confinement, but without the punitive external force. The difficulty was inward, and it's one that all of us (even those of us who are not in prison) face.

Meditation has been scientifically proven many times to be beneficial. Anyone who has practiced it for a significant time can experience the benefits first hand. And, yet we all encounter resistance. Why is that?

No one can supply an easy answer. Or at least not one that makes the problem go away. The fact remains that it's not easy to block out the external world and go into your thoughts. It never has been, and it never will be. But, there are benefits there for those who try—even those who are incarcerated or beseiged by wartime trauma.

So meditation is something that will always be on my radar. And I am curious to see how many other people are curious about it too.

After collapse by financial greed, comes collapse by political greed

Ever watch one of those game shows where a contestant competes for money by facing an increasing series of harder questions? Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is a good example. We always want the contestant to go for the big win, even though the smart play is often to take what’s there and not be too greedy. But, it’s more exciting to see someone get the whole million, or lose everything trying.

Feast or famine, as a spectator sport. That’s what our RealityTV mindset craves. Well, get ready for some real excitment folks.

Congress is playing the same game now with the debt ceiling issue. Both parties are going to ignore the prudent course of actually putting politics aside and quickly reaching a sensible compromise. The fact that our economy just suffered a major blow a few years ago because smart rich guys recklessly gambled that housing prices would never go down doesn’t matter. That was last season. Now it’s time to play High Stakes Congressional Economic Gamble.

I guess we’re so addicted to this kind of drama that we’re willing to suffer another economic hit just for the thrill. So let’s see what kind of havoc political greed can bring us.

The only thing the Washington political greedmongers care about in the midst of this perilous moment is advancing the interests of their party. Sure, both sides have their extremist fringe groups, and both sides have to pretend that those people aren’t crazy. The thing is, though, in Washington it’s hard to diagnose crazy on an individual basis. The whole system is pretty off the wall.

At least in the game shows when the contestant loses it’s their fortune that is squandered. Congressmembers can gamble with impunity, which makes it harmless for them. For us, not so much.

Poor reasoning: lifeblood of the powerful & lazy

Let’s face it: most of us are a little lazy when it comes to challenging propositions that we read in magazines and newspapers. Of course, this plays right into the even lazier mindset of the journalists who write these articles.

Bottom line: it doesn’t take much to manipulate the average American into accepting propositions with weak, or little, support. Politicians use this to their advantage too, but most of our pablum diet comes from journalists.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. In a recent article in The Week (link to PDF copy) I read a story about the supposedly emerging trend of not allowing young kids in certain restaurants. Obviously, not all restaurants are on the brink of banning kids. I say “obviously,” but that point is only obvious if you use your common sense and powers of observation.

So here’s a quote from the article, which is designed to take you from the idea that there (1) is an emerging trend to ban kids, to (2) the reaction to that trend.

“As a parent myself, said Mary Elizabeth Williams in Salon.com, I have to question whether it’s really fair to sentence all moms and dads to a decade of eating at McDonald’s.”

Note how quickly we jump to the assumption that (1) because some restaurants have started banning kids (2) all restaurants will soon ban kids and (3) soon parents will only be able to bring their kids to fast food restaurants.

According to the article, Ms. Mary Elizabeth Williams wants to make it seem as though parents are being denied a choice, with the result that their kids will suffer nutritionally. In fact, parents are not being denied a choice because they can always choose to go to a restaurant that allows kids. If we get to the point where the majority of restaurants somehow decide to ban parents from bringing kids than she might have a point. Of course, by the time that happens, there will no doubt be restaurants that cater to parents who want to bring their kids to non-fast food dining establishments.

What about the choice of restaurant owners? What about the choice of patrons who want to go to restaurants and know that they won’t be disturbed by children? Notice how Ms. Mary Elizabeth Williams elevates the “choice of parents” above all other interested parties. That's in addition to making the ridiculous assumption that soon parents will only be allowed to take their kids to fast food restaurants.

Why would a respectable periodical even present this sort of view as rational? Sadly, because if most people say things that lack rational foundation then newspapers can print these views as though they represent mainstream thought.

We live in a world where poor reasoning is common. Journalists don’t even try to filter it out; of course not, it leads to controversy and that leads to higher readership. Politicians appreciate this lack of reasoning as well. It's a lot easier to manipulate people who think poorly, especially if the press encourages them to remain ignorant.

If I were in charge of our educational system, I would devote at least a year to teaching high school students how to recognize spurious reasoning in everyday life. Of course, the educational system will never be changed in this way. Too many powerful (and lazy) self-interests would resist.

Their livelihood depends on poor reasoning, at least in the short run. And almost no one thinks about the long run anymore.

Update on July 30th: I received a comment from Mary Elizabeth Williams (see comments below) saying that I was lazy for not checking this link to an article on Salon.com, which doesn't contain the quote I included above. I have edited this post to provide a link to the article I read in The Week. Initially, I didn't say which publication I had read the article in, because I didn't think it mattered. Now that there's a possible dispute about the accuracy of Ms. Williams' quote I am referencing the article and providing a PDF copy.

I didn't check the Salon.com article because the article I read didn't reference a specific article, and I assumed that The Week wouldn't simply make up a quote. But if they did then shame on them. And shame on me for not checking more thoroughly. I guess you can't assume anything you read in a weekly publication is true. 

Either way, this new information still proves my point: the mainstream media is more interested in spurring mindless debates with quotes that either (1) demonstrate poor reasoning, or (2) demonstrate poor reasoning AND are entirely made up.

I apologize to Ms. Williams if I helped perpetuate the misattribution. I hope that she is able to provide additional information once she contacts The Week, so we can learn exactly what happened.