[joshfraser]

People decide in the first 10 seconds whether they're going to listen to you or use your session to catch up on email. So make your intro good. Catch their attention. Surprise and intrigue them. Memorize and practise your intro over and over again so when you walk on stage you can get comfortable without having to worry about the specific words you're saying. Memorize your conclusion too so you can bring it home with a strong call to action (bonus points if you tie it back to your intro!). People remember the first and last things you say the most, so make those words count.

[Angostura]

I always dislike this advice because

1. I simply don't think its true - there have been many talks where I have become interested 10 minutes in.

2. It puts tremendous pressure on the speaker for some kind of fireworks in their first 10 seconds.

Your 10 seconds went badly? Who cares just make sure the next 10 seconds are interesting, or the next.

[ajiang]

The advice is very actionable, and it is something that can be practiced. As far as advice goes, I'd consider it fairly well thought out.

As far as its actual effectiveness, it doesn't seem meaningful to involk anecdotal data (i.e. "I've seen counter examples") as the parent post isn't stating that you must, but rather it's a generally good idea or a hack.

Given the data around interviewers making pass/reject decisions within the first few minutes of an interview, I would find it surprising if it wasn't true.

[solipsism]

Given the data around interviewers making pass/reject decisions within the first few minutes of an interview, I would find it surprising if it wasn't true.

This is ludicrous, given that an interview and a tech talk are completely different things. In particular, an interviewer doesn't generally expect or hope to learn anything useful during an interview. That difference alone makes the situations not comparable.

it doesn't seem meaningful to involk anecdotal data

That anecdote is the only bit of data at hand. The comparison to interviews is mere wild speculation.

[tkxxx7]

> In particular, an interviewer doesn't generally expect or hope to learn anything useful during an interview.

Really? then why are they always asking questions? :p

[growlist]

It's known as the 'James Bond intro', where basically you invert the well worn intro, method, exciting results formula by putting the sexiest part first, just like how James Bond/many action films these days start with a thrilling intro. In my experience it can work well - the audience immediately grasp the point for sitting through any challenging content, safe in the knowledge the outcome is rewarding. Also if you return to it later there's a reinforcement element. Of course it relies either on having eye candy or results that are or can be competently portrayed as being amazing.

The effect is supposedly about lighting up the reptilian brain, and you can drop further limbic system boosts throughout your talk to raise arousal level (heart rate, adrenaline) of your audience, which supposedly keeps their interest high. I learnt this on a demo course, perhaps it's just obvious didactic technique.

I should add it's obviously high stakes but can really make your talk stand out, especially if your talk is within a series of conventionally structured talks.

[maaaats]

I like it, maybe for some other reason though. But as a presenter, I'm very nervous the first minute. If I know it by heart, I can recite it while finding my flow and calming down.

[foldr]

I agree. I think better (and much more easily actionable) advice is just to make sure that your first 30 seconds include a clear description of what your talk is about and what kind of conclusion you're going to draw. Long rambling intros do put people off pretty quickly. But I'll still keep listening to a relatively flat, unexciting intro if it's giving me useful information about the rest of the talk.

[mrweasel]

Somewhat off topic: I always wondered why people would bother showing up for a talk or conference if they're going to be on their phone or laptop during the entire thing.

Last time I went to a conference I was actually a little surprised by the number of people at the talks who where clearly working during the entire thing. Why bother, you most likely pay for the plane ticket, the hotel and the conference it self, and then not pay attention? If you're only interested in one talk, then just go to that one and then leave.

Given that people mostly show up to technical talks of their own free will, I don't think you need to trick them into paying attention. It's fair to assume that they are generally interested and focused on what you have to say.

[swaggyBoatswain]

Some people get paid to go to the conference and also for some its in their best interest to half pay attention while doing work.

On another level, sometimes I go to meetups in my area which are technically the same conference presentation as well. There are times when I regret going to the meetup (There's 10-20 people) because of how boring the speaker is or how overly technical it becomes, but I don't want to be rude and leave the area cause it'd reflect poorly. Its not like a convention where leaving is okay, everyone in the area knows each other.

[biztos]

For me anyway it's simple: I go to the talk because I think it's going to be interesting. If it turns out to be boring, but I feel like the speaker is making a real effort, I will stay and try to multitask my way through it, partly just in case something interesting comes up but mostly out of respect for the speaker... who after all is making a real effort.

If I feel like the speaker is just lazy then I'll get up and go somewhere else.

Note that this only works above a certain size: if it's happening in a conference room I will at least pretend to take notes on paper instead of reading email / HN / bugs / etc.

I'm not really sure whether this makes me more considerate, or more duplicitous, or maybe both.

[chengiz]

I've done it. Sometimes you go to a 20 minute talk because the premise was interesting, but it's different from what you thought or too arcane, or the presenter has an accent you cannot understand, and it's too late to look up the program to attend another talk you might have attended instead. So you just pop up the laptop and check email. Why not?

[hprotagonist]

>I always wondered why people would bother showing up for a talk or conference if they're going to be on their phone or laptop during the entire thing.

Nearly all of the interesting things at conferences happen between the talk sessions. Usually, at a bar. Usually, at about 11 o’clock at night. The reason is a lot of people go to conferences has everything to do with networking, and politics. Sometimes, they actually go to talks too.

[3pt14159]

The conferences I pay attention to are the conferences that are in areas I'm pretty weak in because all of the concepts are ill-defined in my mind so I need to work to understand the overall point of the talk.

For topics I'm familiar with, however, I find most talks too simple so I might as well get work done while vaguely listening. Ideally the talk would get more complex, but it usually doesn't.

[katrielalex]

The real part of the conference is the bit in between the talks.

(Fun fact, the first conference I went to had like five coffee breaks per day, and I got a coffee at every break and complained to someone at dinner that there was too much coffee and not enough talking. They explained it to me quickly enough!)

[ltc5505]

Are Lasers Killing Babies In Space? (pause for the remainder of the 10 seconds) Hi, I'm here to talk to you about LinkedIn's new social networking features!

[joshfraser]

Silence is incredibly powerful. This would grab my attention.

[arminiusreturns]

I learned how to speak in public by giving classes to auditoriums full of Marines. I absolutely attest to the "start with an attention grabber" method.