Hello, this week we're going to talk about the middle of your presentation.
Now first things first,
of course you should have your problem and your solution
both supported by relevant evidence: causal,
anecdotal, statistical or expert but this is the core.
Right. If you don't have that there's probably nothing to talk about.
But this week we're going to focus on the middle part, on this part.
How do you transition from problem to solution?
You start your presentation with an introduction and we'll talk
about introductions later in this course because they're not all that important.
Then you will have the problem which I think is very important.
Then you have a very long part -- a solution part and then you have the end.
And something magical should happen over here.
Here, you somehow lift your audience from depression into the bliss,
from the problem state into a solution state.
This is an important part that you should do.
You should provide them with an insight or a plan.
Sometimes with both and sometimes it is just the same thing as you will see later on,
so insight and/or plan.
And of course this is both insight and plan.
We should become more efficient,
we should focus on new market,
and we should consolidate,
and this is about how.
This is not "Why are we doing this?
This is about quite low level of information.
This is about details specifics.
Now we're going to talk about four things: about analogies, about metaphors,
about reframes and about ways to organize the middle of your presentation.
Let's begin with analogy.
Now as we've established presentations could be boring, confusing, and unconvincing.
And analogies help to make your presentation,
I wouldn't say interesting but much easier to understand and to
some audiences they can provide additional support to your logic.
Analogies are a form of logic,
inductive logic to be precise.
Let me clarify just what I mean.
Here is the problem.
Right? Or rather this is the problem.
The problem is that those buttons and controls they're fixed in plastic,
and of course every software wants its own sets of buttons and controls.
But when those guys you cannot change anything,
we've already shipped them.
Right. So what do we do?
Well let's think, we've solved this problem.
We've solved this problem on computers with bitmap screens
and with pointing devices like trackpads and mice.
Now can we do the same thing on the phone?
Of course we can and we will use the best pointing device that we have.
We were born with this kind of a pointing device.
So what is Steve doing here?
Is he trying to prove something to us?
No, I don't think so.
He is explaining his thinking process.
He is opening a door into his brain or maybe Apple's brain,
making the process very intimate and therefore probably convincing.
He is creating trust in a way but he's also explaining how they thought about this.
How they approached this problem and analogies are about that.
They are about explaining thinking processes.
In a sense, this is not what you say when you present.
This is how you arrive to your solution in the first place.
Phones are computers, ergo phones should
have similar interfaces which sounds logical to me.
Let us have a closer look.
Here are three essential slides that we're going to analyze.
The first is the problem slide,
the last is the solutions slide.
What's the in the middle.
This is analogy.
Now, what if we trash that slide?
What if we remove it?
Will the presentation lose anything?
And I would think it will.
The transition wouldn't be as smooth.
It wouldn't be as logical.
It wouldn't be as reasonable.
It will be much harder to understand.
There will be a jump in logic and this is what we're trying to avoid. Right.
So, strictly speaking analogies are not evidence.
They are the process of discovery.
But as many important philosophers of the 20th century,
Thomas Kuhn to be precised.
Have said there's no clear line between discovery and justification.
So you discover and then is the same way as you justify things.
In a way this example that I'm giving to you is a form of justification.
I'm trying to convince you to try the same thing I'm saying.
It worked for Steve therefore it might work for you.
So once again, strictly speaking this is not evidence
and this is the reason why I'm grouping it with the rest of the evidence.
But it might work as an evidence and it's
a great way of explaining things to the audience.
Alexei KapterevLomonosov MSU BS
