Placate or provoke? Two ways a presentation can mislead its audience.

I've had occasion in recent months to note the difference between two styles of presentational speaking. One method emphasises consensus and, in the initial stages of the talk, it reassures the listeners that their expectations are being fulfilled. This creates an environment where they are content to agree with whatever is being said. So the speaker might say something like 'Who here would like to be making more money? Would you like to be making more money? I know I wouldn't say "no" to some more money. I think we could all do with a bit more money, couldn't we? Of course we could.'

The second technique is more confrontational and seeks to create a debate on the topic. The speaker will try to build up interest from the audience by effectively doing the opposite of the above, ie. by asking questions or making statements that at least one person in the audience is almost guaranteed to disagree with. This also creates an atmosphere of discomfort in most of the rest of the group. One way of doing this, without looking foolish or uninformed, is for the speaker to phrase what they're saying in subtly incorrect terms. For example, they might use the term 'turnover' in a context where it only really makes sense to talk about profit. If questioned on this, they can point out that if you substitute the two terms, their argument is perfectly valid, indeed obvious. If no-one confronts them then they can make even more obvious points, using the altered terminology. This reassures the listeners that they do indeed understand what is being said, even if it is being phrased in an unfamiliar way. Again this is done in the early part of the talk.

The second strategy serves a number of purposes. If the speaker is explicitly questioned, it gives them an opportunity to put the questioner in their place, enhancing the speaker's authority. Even if this doesn't happen, by altering the language of the argument, the speaker has shifted the ground from under the audience's feet and made them slightly uncertain about what they thought they knew, thus putting them in a more susceptible mindset for the speaker's main points.

Both techniques are highly manipulative and are completely independent of the main points of the talk being in any way true or useful. I have to say however, that, given the choice between the two, the first merely seeks to keep the audience stuck in a rut and to merely accept what the speaker is spoon-feeding them. The second, at least, attempts to engage with the audience and to break them out of their accepted ways of doing things, even if it is with the sole objective of switching them over to the speakers point of view.

Don't get me wrong, I believe you need to use technique to create a good talk and conscious strategy will always have a manipulative element. However, in order to be a truly successful speaker, you should always keep in mind the ideal that all of your content (as with any service you provide) should be for the honest benefit of your consumer.