This trait holds back most communicators
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen".
That's the brilliantly curiosity-stimulating and attention-grabbing line of George Orwell's novel '1984'. Imagine if that line was replaced with, "in the dystopian world of Air Strip one the totalitarian government controlled every aspect of reality, even time".
Why is Orwell's line better?
Orwell's version asks you to interpret his words and construct your own meaning. It sparks curiosity. What type of world has clocks that strike thirteen? My version supplies the answer for you up front. Said another way, he is creating curiosity, I'm giving a conclusion.
What's the difference?
When you give your audience something ambiguous you ask them to take an active part and make meaning from the jigsaw pieces you've given them, whether its story, anecdote or imagery. They have no choice but to focus and start putting the pieces together for themselves.
When you do the work for them by giving them the completed picture on the jigsaw box through facts, figures and information your audience can remain passive. Phones can come out, emails can be checked. Why pay attention if I'm being fed the conclusions?
Curiosity creates a cognitive itch
George Lowenstein, a Behavioural economist at Carnegie Mellon university created the 'gap theory of curiosity'. He said, "curiosity happens when we experience a gap in our knowledge." A gap between what we know and don't know. The cognitive itch created by these gaps is only scratched when the knowledge gap is closed by finding the conclusion.
Giving conclusions up front violates this law of curiosity, because when we give conclusions we're scratching an itch we haven't created. We're closing a knowledge gap we haven't opened in the audience's mind. How would you feel if I scratched your head when you didn't have an itch?
Where curiosity goes attention flows
When you give your audience something to piece together in their minds their attention will be heightened until that task is resolved, and the conclusion reached. So the very same facts, figures, statistics, or explanations many speakers rely on, presented instead as questions, clues, cryptic statements, or unresolved scenarios can have a totally different effect on an audience's attention levels.
Think back to your high school history lessons. Imagine the difference between being told exactly what happened (conclusion) during the Dunkirk evacuations in 1940. Compare this to being told that German forces are advancing rapidly (race against the clock) and 338,000 of your soldiers are trapped with their backs against the English channel, what will you do to rescue them? One tells you what to think the other gets you thinking.
When giving conclusions up front is best
Presenting conclusions, ie: facts, figures, information and explanations can be very handy in some situations. Especially when time is of the essence or you need your audience to make a decision, such as during a board meeting.
Like in the executive summary of a report, you're aim is to convey all the information needed as briefly as possible to enable your readers to be able to make an informed decision.
The worst ever whodunnit novel
Imagine opening a murder mystery novel and on the first page the author tells you who the murderer is. You've spoilt the whole process of discovery, you've deprived your readers of firing up their grey matter and trying to work out whodunnit. There's no reason to pay attention to the rest of the book. The final reveal is satisfying for the very reason we've had to put in time and effort to get there.
Forget to spark curiosity and your audience might forget your talk
A speaker who focuses on creating curiosity rather than spoon-feeding conclusions will be more memorable. You can test this out. 24 hours after your next talk, ask someone who was there to recall three key facts, figures or bits of information from your talk. I bet they'll struggle.
Whereas, a speaker who uses more 'curiosity sparking' approaches such as story, metaphor, analogy, photographs and symbolism will score far higher in tests of recall.
Try this the next time you speak
When putting together your next communication ask yourself, 'how can I rephrase this to spark curiosity rather than giving certainty upfront?". Try to create a temporary cognitive discomfort in your audience whilst they try to create meaning from your words. Get their cogs whirring, because whilst those cogs are turning minds are active and engaged.
Hunters don't just find the catch satisfying, its mostly the chase. Give your listeners the pleasure of mental curiosity and pursuit during your talks, and they'll appreciate their hunting sack full of conclusions much more.
