The 'precision' vs 'connection' problem affecting female experts
A problem reported by female experts doing media interviews is that their (understandable) desire to be as correct and precise as possible in their answers to the presenter can come at the expense of having an impact on the only audience that counts: the distracted public at home.
I call this the ‘precision vs connection’ problem. Female experts often cannot switch off their professional training of being as accurate and comprehensive as possible. Although rationally they know that they are going to have very little time and they’ll be talking to non-specialists, the moment the camera or the mic are on they lapse back into lecture mode or exam mode.
Hence pitfalls such as the use of incomprehensible professional jargon and numbered lists ( “there are seven main reasons why cells behave this way” type answers), to name just two, which leave the viewers and listeners none the wiser as to why they should care and how the issue is relevant to them.
At the other end of the scale, we are all familiar with the kind of political demagogues who, unburdened by Impostor Syndrome or specialist knowledge of any kind, are excellent communicators because they know how to connect with their audience – they know how much they can take in and what will make them sit up and take notice.
But the choice need not be between making stuff up and boring people to death. Just remember you’re talking to ordinary people, you’re not defending your doctoral thesis. No-one is there to judge you. Nor will anyone suddenly grasp the full complexity of a fraught issue because you were on BBC News for three minutes.
Context is what most ordinary people lack. Yes, it’s great if you can get the big number perfectly right but ballpark will also do. What people need to understand is how big is the number in the great scheme of things? What’s behind the catchy percentage? If X measure and Y measure are being deployed (we don’t need the full list of measures!) what measure is in fact lacking? With what consequences?
Your peers, I always say, are not your audience. They might catch your performance but, unless they’re particularly pompous and obtuse, they will understand that you weren’t speaking to them, at their level. People at home, putting the kettle on and shouting at the dog while you speak, are your audience and need a fighting chance to be guided towards what is important and relevant to them. You don’t have to appeal to their worst instincts, like demagogues do, but you certainly have to appeal to their human instincts.
Don’t attempt to tell them everything. Tell them a story that will stay with them and might give them a slightly better perspective on the world.
Comments