Exploring Effective Presentations: What Does It Mean to Align the View to Be Shared? | Premise Design for Inception-Style Presentations
This discussion continues from here.
What you will learn in this article
What needs to be aligned for people to be convinced
Why it is not "information" that should be shared in a presentation
Why discussions fail to connect when premises, constraints, and comparison criteria are misaligned
What should be established first when designing a logical path
| People are not looking at the same thing
In the previous article, I discussed how a presentation changes not based on "what you say," but on "what you show first."
So, what should you show first at that moment?
In many cases, "clear explanations" or "presenting the conclusion" come to mind here.
However, there is something that is not yet aligned before that.
It is the fact that the speaker and the listener are not standing in the same landscape.
Even if they are looking at the same materials,
even if they are hearing the same words,
people are not necessarily seeing the same landscape.
Understanding of the premises differs
The positions they are in differ
Perception of the constraints to be upheld differs
Judgment criteria regarding what to prioritize differ
If you proceed with a discussion in this state, no matter how many conclusions you stack, they will not align.
The speaker feels, "Why isn't this getting through?" and the listener feels, "Why do you reach that conclusion?"
Neither is wrong, yet a disconnect occurs.
The cause is not a lack of information, but
a misalignment in the view being seen.
For example, in a meeting,
When exchanges like
"What were we talking about in the first place?" or "To what extent are the premises shared?" occur,
in many cases,
the view being seen is not aligned.
| What should be shared is not "information"
What should be shared in a presentation is not mere information.
It is the foundation for judgment that lies further ahead.
Which premise are you standing on?
Within which constraints are you thinking?
What are you using as the basis for comparison?
What are you using as the evaluation criteria?
In a state where these things are not aligned,
no matter how much correct information you pile up, it is difficult to achieve consensus.
This is because people are moved not by information itself,
but by "how they can judge based on their own criteria."
| Why does consensus not occur if the "view" is not aligned?
People are moved not because they were told to,
but when they can think, "That makes sense."
To achieve that, they need to be able to trace the path to the conclusion with their own eyes.
However,
The premises are not shared
The understanding of constraints is misaligned
The basis for comparison is different
In this state, the path forward is not visible.
As a result, the conclusion becomes something "given from the outside," and
it cannot be accepted as one's own judgment.
This is where discomfort and resistance arise.
| Even with the same information, the way it is received changes
What is happening here is not a matter of the amount of information.
Even with the same content,
when presented along with evaluations or interpretations, it becomes easier to accept as a conclusion.
The act of providing information,
depending on how it is received, can also look as if the judgment has already been made for the listener.
On the other hand, even with the same content,
when it is placed in a way that it can be seen as it is,
how to interpret it is left to the listener.
The difference lies not in the content of the information,
but in whether room for judgment is left.
| The first step in designing the route is to align the terrain
Looking at it this far,
what should be done first in a presentation becomes clear.
It is not to present the conclusion immediately.
The first thing to do is to stand in the same landscape.
Where to start thinking from
What constraints exist
What criteria to use for judgment
Only when these are aligned,
will it be possible to follow the same path.
When the conclusion appears on that basis,
it is not accepted as something "told to them," but
as something they "arrived at themselves."
Summary of this article
Conviction occurs not through the amount of information, but through the "sharing of the landscape."
What needs to be aligned is the foundation for judgment, such as premises, constraints, and comparison criteria
If the landscape is not aligned, the conclusion cannot be accepted as one's own judgment
Even if the information is the same, how it is presented changes how it is received
Designing the route begins with aligning the terrain, not the conclusion