There’s something about having someone introduce a speaker where they’re just too excited to the point where it feels like they’re covering up for the fact that this person isn’t actually that interesting. Like many things, there’s a sweet spot here and I suspect it’s on the lower end of introducer hype. When the name is big enough, little to not introduction is needed, and when the name isn’t big at all tons and tons of qualifications and experience seem to be stated and at that point the hype seems fake. Play it cool, my friends.
I think we’ve all held ourselves to a far higher standard than someone else has set for us. It’s incredibly stressful and though we frequently pin it on the other person, this stress is very frequently self induced. I’ve had the experience quite a few times where I thought something was adequate at best, and someone else was very happy with my performance. Now, I’m not saying that simply meeting expectations is good enough, but when someone is expecting early or mid-stage work, you don’t need to deliver perfection immediately. you end up beating yourself up unnecessarily.
Many many people have talked about things like your true fans, niching down, and finding more products for your audience. In my (limited) experience, trying to make things for an extremely broad audience, many people may think that it’s not quite for them. Possibly unexpectedly, making things for more people may alienate the people that love what you create and cause a smaller reach.
I’ve drawn a few graphs about ability to share knowledge based on how much you know about a subject. This graph partially explains why the tail of those graphs at high subject knowledge cause poor communication. It may just be some (not all) of my professors, but it seems difficult to separate what’s necessary to understand the subject from the minutia that experts care about. Adding too much extraneous information causes you to talk in long uninterrupted chunks and sound increasingly rambly even when the information is solid.
We’ve all tried explaining something that we’re clueless about to someone. Often it’s very clear what’s happening and we lack believability. Often you aren’t clueless about something you haven’t done. You can actually know a ton about it–but it can appear that you’re in the clueless category. Having directly done something when trying to convince others to do it adds an absurd amount of credibility and allows you to be far more of an authority..
Although I hate to admit it, the Write a Book in a Day event that Zack and I did this past weekend had far less planned out than a 10 hour event probably should have. However, our two participants were very excited and already trusted us a decent amount due to either attending or hearing of past events. This allows us to have a less polished and structured approach and their trusting of the process allows them to still have a great time even if it wasn’t seamless or perfect.
Have you ever tried to eat better without tracking what better meant? I have many times, and I normally seem to regress back to previous habits. If I do make some change that stays for a medium length of time it’s usually slight. I know not everyone is into data, but taking data about anything you want to change is not only a great way to track progress, but to accurately figure out what the problem is. Back to food, having a vague sense of needing to eat better is completely different then knowing a breakdown of how many calories you ate each day as well as the distribution of food groups.