I was one of the people who thought it was an April 22nd due date... sorry!
I chose Sam Harris' Ted Talk and an interesting Ted Talk about turning anxiety into action, specifically in response to climate change. The two presentations are similar in the way that they take a step back from the main topic and turn to feelings to look at the bigger picture. Harris' presentation is about taking the step in modern psychology to recognize that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. The way he came to the answer was to take a step back and not look at which answers are right and wrong, but if there is even a potential right and wrong. In Renée's presentation she talks about looking at anxiety about climate change, how it can be a pretty daunting topic. There are so many actions we could be taking, but we seem to be going too slow. She then turns her attention to bringing people out of that state by being compassionate and working together. By taking a step back and looking at the problem that everyone is facing, we can feel that the solution is closer within reach. Both presentations describe a problem or solution by stepping back and therefore diving deeper.
Harris' presentation is effective because of how intellectual and thought provoking it is. He dives deeper into the forces of human nature and societies as a whole. He picks very blunt and true examples, how covering your wife and daughter without their consent is wrong as well as selling pictures of women at every newsstand is wrong. He states his purpose very early into the presentation, about 5 minutes in, he spends the rest of his time defending this idea. The use of the moral landscape was very helpful for viewers to grasp who and how we reach those peaks. He also says that there is not an answer to every moral question, but there are answers for some. When he gives his viewers visualizations to accompany certain ideas, i.e. the map for paddling, the moral landscape and the pictures of different treatment of women, he allows them to be see how crass certain ideas are in a moral and scientific view. He also begins with the simpler ideas and moves deeper and deeper as the speech goes on, but it is not always linear. Sometimes he will introduce a topic that seems out of place and he brings it back in, that little jump in the progression of the presentation is what keeps participants aware and present.
Lertzman begins her presentation with an anecdote, which some find to be one of the best ways to prove one's ethos on a topic. She shows how her concern of global matters influenced her decision to go into psychology. She gave relatable experience and solutions during her presentation. She also talked to her audience as if they were going to make a change, she didn't just talk about the change. Her presentation was effective because of her kind voice and hopeful, but true words.
Lertzman's presentation connects back to my project because I think I am/was in that state of numbness. I knew that things had to be done in respect to climate change, but I didn't know how to help, I felt too small to take on a problem so big. I began to look at the problems with climate change from a different point of view, of course I will not be able to solve this crisis, but I can make a difference in my community and educate my peers. This presentation focused more on my motivation to take on my topic, rather than the topic itself.
I plan to use some of the different techniques in any future speech because they made these speeches memorable and informative. I would like to add humor that doesn't distract from the main point like in Harris' presentation. I would also like to make some solutions look approachable like in Lertzman's. I also thought that the pace of both speeches were good, at first I thought they were too slow, but I understand now that if they were faster it would be way too hard to understand. I would like to emulate the pace of those speeches in my future speeches.