[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.