Oh. Ahaha! Scanning the thread, I had missed that suggestion/interpretation in the banter, first time around. Probably wasn't expecting it. And now, it seems, a pun. Intentional or otherwise, the effect is very droll.
But it also could illustrate a point about the rationale and need for face-to-face discussion or video interviews. The nuances of a lot of speech can often be better communicated if/when delivered "in person".
Narrated in a story, what was said - and the accompanying cues - might be described something like, for example:
"Oh well, you could try such-and such, you know." he said, looking at me with an amused twinkle in his eye.
- which, in a phone discussion or a forum text discussion might come out merely as "You could try such-and such, you know", which doesn't really make obvious any of those associated cues. So the communication "fails" to the extent that the nuance is lost in transmission.This reminds me of something:
Before letting us loose as lecturers, me and the newly-formed group of colleagues I was part of were first sent away on an intensive, live-in 2-week immersion training course on training techniques, held at a prestigious executive training school nestled away in the Buckinghamshire countryside. It can't have been cheap, and they pushed us (the group) hard, so it was not an easy free ride:
- At the start, we were told what the training objectives were - what we would be learning and would be taking away from this course.
- Then we were told to prepare a 5-minute presentation on a subject of our choice (each of us were specialists in a different area), list the objectives - what we wanted the lecture to achieve in terms of learning/understanding, and then we were each video'd delivering the lecture, using supporting visual aids. The videos were made and then tucked away for future reference.
- For the next few days, we were taken through the theory, methods and practice in subjects necessary to enable us to maximise our understanding and effectiveness in lecturing as a communications and training delivery method.
- Then we were told to use this new knowledge to prepare for another 5-minute lecture, to be video'd, and that these videos were to be scrutinised, discussed and critiqued by us (the group of trainees and the leading trainer).
- The critique session was humbling, and at times ego-bruising, but - since we trainees were all in the same boat - whilst we did not pull any punches, we had the good sense to be fair to one another. The critique focused mainly on the effectiveness of delivery and the relative achievement of objectives, rather than the content of the lecture per se, except where content was felt to be insufficient or superfluous.
- Then we had to prepare for a 2nd lecture on the same topic, then critique, wash, rinse and repeat.
- Then we had to prepare for a 3rd lecture on the same topic, then critique, wash, rinse and repeat.
- Then we had to prepare for a 4th lecture on the same topic, then critique, wash, rinse and repeat.
- By the 4th lecture, we had all got the idea and learned the process, and our lectures were very good and came out with 5 stars at the critique (objectives met).
- At this point, we were asked if we would like to share a viewing of our first video'd lecture from the very start of the course, and discuss and assess whether we had achieved the objectives of the course as originally given. Since we had all learned to become pretty thick-skinned during the critique sessions, we agreed to risk exposeing ourselves this time, again. And what we saw was how each of us had improved dramatically and the extent to which the objectives of the course had been met.
- In the remainder of the course, we focused on practice - giving and honing a 20-minute lecture on a subject in our field of specialty.
- By the end of the course, all objectives of the training had been categorically met, and we were safe to let loose as lecturers, with some well-honed techniques of presentation already learned and in place.
The above could be relevant to preparing for video interviews, or other meetings face-to-face, or presentations to groups. They are all very much the same thing - the communication of ideas.
Trying to hide oneself from
that communication is not going to really help where the objective should arguably probably be to master
the techniques of communication, so that one can relax and communicate in the most effective manner one sees available in any given environment or situation.**
Just because one had previously succeeded in getting a job in a video interview where the video was duff, and succeeded in phone interviews, but then failed in a single video interview where the video was
working OK, does not necessarily mean, of itself, that ipso facto
the video was the cause of failure. There would seem to be no statistical basis for arriving at that conclusion and it would thus seem to be a non sequitur
(i.e., it does not follow).
There is often a natural shyness, an imagined and inhibiting fear of personal risk inherent in our communications with complete strangers, and it can inhibit us to the extent that it literally cripples us - inhibits our ability to perform successfully in what might otherwise be normal/necessary human interactions in everyday life or the carrying-out of our daily work. There is also a fear of potential failure
in some cases - for example, as experienced by sales people making cold calls. This can lead to avoidance of risk by withdrawal. The alternative is to confront the fear, overcome it and do it anyway, and one of the most common ways of achieving this is through preparation and then repeated practice/drills
- as in the training techniques described above, and as in many sales training courses.Note:**
There are books written on the subject of "Thinking on your feet"
, and even courses of training (I once attended such a course and found it invaluable
). They can transform one's realisation (for the better) as to what one is capable of. Anyone can learn these techniques, if they can accept the risk of having to develop and change/improve their skillset. Similarly, anyone can practice and learn to use critical thinking skills, if they can accept the very real risk to the ego of having to develop and change/improve their thinking skills.
The challenge of effectively and constructively interacting and communicating with others, and of effectively and constructively thinking about
those communications - and about solving Life's problems in general - are endemic in our society and lives.Nobody
is born with the skills necessary to be an effective communicator, or the skills necessary to be an effective critical thinker. These are learned skills
- acquired through learning - like riding a bike, or swimming, or typing. Yet many of us seem to go through life ignorant of the need to develop such skills if we wish to make our lives more fulfilling/improved. Yet we somehow accept being (say) "two-fingered typists", or "two-fingered thinkers".
Why is that? Who/what is inhibiting our self-development, preventing us from learning/acquiring new skills?
So-called "education" on its own will not necessary be sufficient, of itself, except where that education includes
the teaching, development and behavioural practice
of effective habits of communications and thinking skills (De Bono and CoRT).