I want to be a good presenter; so, when Al GORE said in „An inconvenient truth” (2006) that he has held the speech / presentation in the movie for more than 1,000 times, I looked for some methods he used; I will not speak in the blog post about the message itself, but about how it was said; when seeing the movie, do remember that Al GORE is a successful politician, so he, in theory, should have the ability to hold a very good speech.
So, what did I like?
- A recent study – How to Speak Persuasively: Scientific American Podcast – showed that people speaking in a speed similar to Al GORE’s speed (not too fast, instead a bit slower) are most persuasive (see the article for explanations & a live demo);
- Very good way of making one choose – planet or gold? What do you choose? It’s very simple, make a choice;
- He challenged opposite views – „This is what critics say” and argued against them; very cool and bold;
- The scientific facts are really not that complicated – it gets warmer, problems appear; I liked the way in which he went in-depth on both the process causing the problem (how it gets warmer, how do we know it) and the effects (what will happen)?
- He talked a lot about his personal history (I did this & that, I faced this, my friends, my colleague);
- Graphics in the documentary are stunning;
- There two main ways in which you can convince someone of an idea – emotionally („Oh, but you’ll love it!!!”) or rationally („The reason for this is …”); Al GORE seemed to have used very good emotions in the movie, and the documentary is catchy; lots of emotions; logic is there too, but emotions are in high places;
- He used clear-to-understand things (everybody knew that he run for Presidency, that the Americans landed on the Moon, I didn’t see complicated words in the movie);
- The movie is all about making a change – perception & action upon perception; I liked the way in which it was made;
- The documentary ended with clear steps to action (to read them you had to also watch the credits), like viewing this web site: Home – Climate Crisis;
What was so-so (not very ethical), but, still, convincing (emotionally)?
- He made a parallel between a personal loss in his family (his sister died of lung cancer, thus his father stopped growing tobacco) and the problem (people won’t fight global warming until it’s too late); this was just a bit too much to me; perhaps I’m wrong on this, so it’s so & so;
- I would personally prefer to put also „Oh, I agree, I may be wrong on this, we don’t have sufficient data, the errors can be there, it’s not 100%, problems have occurred”; right now, the documentary seemed „We’re perfect, buy our idea”; yet, this may be non-marketing, so I put it as so & so;
What I didn’t like?
- It’s very convincing to use simple affirmations – „ecological is better”; this may sound simple, so it must be true; or not? Al GORE used this example – Japanese car brands are ecological; American car brands are not ecological; Japanese car brands are successful (economically); American ones are in economic trouble; thus, being ecological implies that you will have economical success; huh? Correlation does not imply causation; but it does sound good – „Oh, look at the graphs, they must be true”; also, other examples – I don’t want to get into any debate about ecology, but the main idea of the movie is that „We produce CO2” & „The temperature on the planet is rising”; thus, the CO2 must cause this; this was actually implied in the movie, no need for demonstration; but I don’t think that things are just that simple, although the simple model is easier to comprehend (and sell in a documentary); another causation / correlation is: „humans produce CO2” / „other sources, independent of humans, give CO2” / „CO2 increases” / „human activity increases”; thus, „human increased activity must cause the increased level of CO2”; it may be, but it may also not be; it’s not that simple; the main point of my assessment is not whether Al GORE is right with his assessments or not; perhaps all of the above assessments are true and his conclusions are fine; but I would like more demonstration and in-depth analysis than „ecological cars means more money”; he could have justified some of his affirmations;
- Some things are so emotional that they don’t seem smart – he said he held the presentation more than 1,000 times; then he went on to put a map with some of the places he went to, putting no more than 30 items (perhaps fewer); sure, it’s great to see 30 dots on a map (emotionally, you feel connected), but he just said he presented 1,000 times; the logical argument is much more compelling, and the graph seems a bit silly in comparison; but the emotions – „Wow, what a map!”
Two bottom lines:
- If you want to see a good speech, go see „An inconvenient truth” (2006);
- If you want to help on the issue, you can start by viewing this web site: Home – Climate Crisis.