first presentation critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings...

8
First Presentation First Presentation Critique – all presentations had Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were Differences in presentations were based mostly on organization of based mostly on organization of material and effectiveness of material and effectiveness of delivery delivery

Post on 19-Dec-2015

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: First Presentation Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based

First PresentationFirst Presentation

Critique – all presentations had the same set Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based Differences in presentations were based mostly on organization of material and mostly on organization of material and effectiveness of deliveryeffectiveness of delivery

Page 2: First Presentation Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based

In GeneralIn General

• Too much factoid presentation – but this is typical for first class presentations

• Organizing facts and data into coherent themes is just the necessary first step – while this works fine in an academic setting and you have been trained to do this – I want you to become subversively persuasive (you’ll thank me years later)

Page 3: First Presentation Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based

Generic ExamplesGeneric Examples

• In general, each team did come up with some interesting/alarming factoid but then did not use that to launch into a persuasive tirade about how this is an indicator of our near doom if we don’t wake the hell up and do something.

• That is the message you want to convey in the context of Global Issues!

• You also can’t use descriptors such as “huge impact”, “drastic consequences”, etc unless you can reall demonstrate that

Page 4: First Presentation Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based

Specific ExamplesSpecific Examples

• Tiger Team: Port Insurance Data was good – should have launched into tirade about world wide economic and irrecoverable meltdown because of the inability for super container ships to deliver their infinite goods.

• Blue Team: $120 Billion Environmental Refugee price tag is very small compared to the world economy – claiming it was “large” removes your credibility; Rather than a Polar Bear Icon should have produced graphic representing that Methane Feed Back Loop = DEATH For All!

Page 5: First Presentation Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based

MoreMore

• Shark Team: Need to bring extreme weather events down to real human terms – else they remain abstract. Your “drastic exponential increase” was a good start but you need to humanize that. What does that trend really mean to citizens in the US 10,20,50 years from now.

Page 6: First Presentation Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based

MoreMore

• Shark Team; Metaphors go a long way

Page 7: First Presentation Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based

Dragon TeamDragon Team

• Good attempt at bringing it down to the human level

• Failed to explain the seriousness of exponential water temperature sensitivity – note where Washington DC is!

Page 8: First Presentation Critique – all presentations had the same set of (typical) generic failings which I expected. Differences in presentations were based

ConclusionsConclusions

• Organized facts are not persuasive

• Plausible manipulation of these facts to raise awareness of RISK (like the YouTube guy does) will get people to think about the future more seriously.

• Metaphors/Visuals that connect with the human experience are essential.