Time and time and time again I see it… presenters throw facts and figures at the audience in an attempt to be credible. Frankly, it doesn’t work.
If I don’t trust you, I’m not going to believe your data. Deal with it. If I think you’re a politician (say) with a know political stance, am I going to take your word for facts X, Y and Z? No. I’m going to assume at the very least you’ve selected facts X, Y and Z to suit your political stance. No amount of thrown data is going to make me trust you.
On the contrary, it’s going to make me ‘untrust’ the data. (I know untrust isn’t a word but it says what I mean better than the real word ‘distrust’ :) )
I see it a lot in nervous presenters too – rather than have the courage to stand up and metaphorically say “this is me and here are my arguments with their supporting data” they say “Here’s a lot of data” and either pray or assume the audience can put the pieces together in their heads (they usually can’t but that’s another post for another day!).
The right way to do things – as understood by any actor, orator or… well, frankly, anyone with charisma and personal impact… is to spend time establishing credibility first. Then, and only then, will your audience be prepared to accept your arguments and/or your data.
There are no exceptions – or at least none that I can think of as I write this at stupid o’clock in the morning! :)
The nearest I’ve heard to a refutation of my position came from a research scientist who pointed out, quite rightly, that scientists “don’t do the posturing and credibility stuff” at the start of their presentations. My response was that
- firstly, the very fact that you’re an independent, objective scientist with no ax to grind is what establishes your credibility; and
- secondly, I think you’ll find your published record means you are judged, just not as obviously! :)
Let me give you a simple example: on twitter I’ve recently been followed by a self-described
oldest, most diverse and most influential centre-right think tank
I’m not making any implied comment on their political stance (or mine) when I say that as a result of this description I’m going to assume anything they tell me is based on, and biased by, this political position.
At the other end of the spectrum, how about this for an opening sentence designed to give credibility…? The presentation was about the advantages of taking part in martial arts for young people and the first words from the presenter were
Hello. My name’s S—- and I have a black belt in three different marital arts: for two of them I have the highest dan.
