I once had to follow a speech by the famous sexologist Doctor Ruth. In fact, I was in her audience, because I didn’t want to miss her talk, and thus was late to my own speech, since it was in a smaller venue a short jog away.
Don’t follow Dr. Ruth. She’s hilarious, and she’s talking about the number two fascination of the species (after Internet cat videos).
And don’t arrive at your own speech late, and out of breath.
I began my speech with more than the usual number of ‘disfluencies’ or what are commonly known as verbal slips. I was “umming” and “ahing” my way through the opening of my speech when a nice Southern woman sitting in the front row raised her hand.
I almost didn’t call on her because I was only 45 seconds into my speech, but I thought to myself that I might be able to catch my breath a bit better, so I said, “yes?”
She said, “So ya’ll call yourself an expert on public speaking, right?”
I knew this was not headed in a good direction, but what could I do? She had me. If I said no, then why was I giving a presentation on public speaking? And if I said yes, well, here’s what happened.
“Yes?” (Note the rising intonation, denoting a lack of confidence and a high degree of uncertainty.)
“Well, I’ve counted 6 ‘ums’ in the first 30 seconds of your speech. So how can you call yourself an expert?”
I thought: oh, crap. I said: “How many other people here noticed all those ums and found them distracting?”
In my desperation, I had stumbled on the best response. Always crowd-source your answer when the questioner has you over a barrel.
The audience all said they hadn’t noticed. That allowed me to catch my breath, finally, and point out that ums and ahs were only a problem if people noticed them and they became an obstacle to comprehension.
Everyone seemed happy with this answer, it shut up my hostile witness, and I was able to complete the speech.
Now I have a further set of reasons as to why disfluencies, as the experts call ums and ahs, are not only not a problem, but actually helpful.
New research shows that these hitherto scorned slips of speech actually perform three useful functions. First of all, they stall things for the speaker, allowing her to think about what to say next.
Second, because everyone knows that the speaker is stalling for time, we tend to listen more attentively to what’s coming next, assuming that it is more thoughtful than what has come before. So we rate the expertise of phrases that follow an um more highly than other phrases.
And third, because we’re listening more carefully, we understand what follows an um better and remember it more clearly than other speech.
So the next time you’re inclined to criticize a speaker who is using ums and ahs, refrain. You’re actually understanding that speaker better than you were before.
And disfluencies may be coming soon to a robot near you. Since ums and ahs improve both speed of comprehension and retention, experimenters are beginning to study the idea that our bionic friends should talk to us in the same way as us clumsier humans. In order to be better understood.
Thank you, Dr. Ruth.
Yeesh – nasty questioner!
I wrote part of my dissertation on disfluencies! Since Dale Carnegie and Dorothy Sarnoff (“To err is human, but to “er” is a capital crime”) there’s been a lot of attempted formalisation of public speaking. People love to count disfluencies! They empower you to judge someone’s speaking ability while staying aloof and not engaging with their content.
But all the studies show that there are more important things at play: mirror neurons, emotional connection, and facial affect. You can ‘umm’ and ‘ahh’ all you like, as long as you stay present, treat the speech athletically, and stay engaged with the material.
Ooph – I’ll be having nightmares about that question tonight!
Thanks, Matt —
Here’s to ums and ahs!
I’m in 2 minds about your claims here Nick. On the one hand, I agree with Matt that sometimes (especially in Toastmasters) counting ums and ahs gives a listener an easy way out.
On the other hand, for the research mentioned in the post, where’s the link to it, or the name of its authors? It’s hard to believe when it’s so mystical.
I suspect a listener’s reaction to an um has a lot to do with how much they trust the speaker. Your description sounds like they’re giving the benefit of the doubt about the reason for an um. But if they don’t trust the speaker, the um’s likely to be seen as stalling for time to make up more lies!
Anyway, one thing I’ve taken away is the tip about crowd-sourcing. And if the audience says they were bothered by the ums, I guess you’d just have to apologise, take a breath, and try again.
Hi, Craig — the claims aren’t mine — they’re from more than one research study showing that disfluencies lead to better memory and comprehension. Here’s one example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027706002186. It’s not mystical at all. I’ve been fascinated by the emotional response to this research — no one wants to accept the facts because, apparently, we have so much invested in um-free speech.
Thanks for posting the link. I’ve never heard of this, and it’s fascinating.
Does it apply to public speaking though? I ask because the abstract talks about everyday, spontaneous speech. It also says ums are correlated with words that are less predictable. So it’d be interesting to know if that’s when public speakers tend to say “um”.
Fundamentally, conversation and public speaking are more alike at this largely unconscious level than they are different. But of course further research needs to be done!
hey nick – interesting, as always. i think the key phrase is “if the audience doesn’t notice.”
perhaps it’s because those who have public speaking training are more aware of all aspects of a speech, but i know that i do notice a speaker who constantly uses such vocalized pauses, and i find it distracting.
most likely in your case what you were saying was so electrifying that your passion completely overwhelmed and negated your ums and ahs for everybody except that “always one in the crowd who likes to find fault” listener!
anyway, definitely like your “crowd sourcing” approach to get out of a tight spot!!
Hi, Mike — yes, perhaps we coaches are more attuned than the average audience. I agree with you — I think the key is that verbal infelicities don’t overwhelm the content.
I read most of your blogs and think they’re wonderfully written and very useful. So I was really surprised by this one. I think Mike Grenby has put it very nicely – it depends on your audience.
It must be because I’ve done a lot of NLP and coaching that I’m well tuned to pay attention to how the speaker unconsciously organises their way of being, as I hear every er and um and other habitual fillers: ‘yes, no’, like, you know, and I find extremely distracting.
Then as a result, I will made a judgement about whether someone is credible and worth listening too. It’s not about staying aloof, this type of judging is a process that everyone does in certain contexts, called decision making. So, my thinking is that its far more useful to speak slowly and use longer pauses, if you want time to think as this does gain attention.
That was the way I was trained, too, Alison — that’s what makes this research so interesting. It goes against rules of thumb and dogma out there. NLP is based on very old research, so perhaps it needs an updating!
What a clever answer! I had to look up disfluency (also spelled dysfluency). My manager used to make a tic chart as to how many ums (and other fillers) I used in a speech. The first time, the number was over 30! But it was also when I was first starting out. That exercise alone helped me to pay more attention to disfluencies. Now, I rarely fall into that trap because I know my transitions so well.
Dr. Ruth came to one of my storytelling presentations at the 92nd St Y wearing a red suit. My eye kept being drawn to her, yet I didn’t want to look at her. Do you have an opinion about red suits near the front row?
Dr. Ruth attracts attention wherever she goes! You’d be hard put to ignore her in the front row….
I call them verbal tics, and they are fine if they achieve the purpose of helping you jumpstart your thinking. Sometimes the brain just needs a runway, so I’m never concerned about ums, wells, and i means that begin a thought. But when they become interspersed throughout, they suggest a nervous habit that will almost certainly be conspicuous and distracting.
Thanks, Rick — I agree — you don’t want too much of the hesitation, or the runway to take too long, to use your metaphor!
I’m not sure I agree uhming would make people listen more attentively. What pisses one person off may be totally ignored by another. If people register your uhms, they’re not truly hearing you. They could be pissed off and counting the uhms. But as you pointed out, not everybody hears them. I believe some people focus on them if there are too many. My rule of thumb is, speak from the heart. Be truly awake, in the Buddhist sense of the word, when you do. If a few uhms slip in, so be it. I bet no one will notice because everything else will be so powerful.
Hi, Halina —
Thanks for your comment. Readers seem to be having trouble with this research because it goes against the grain of training that says “don’t um and ah!” But the point is, the research is saying, maybe the traditional thinking is wrong!
um, glad to see this topic has provoked some lively discussion. er, always room for more than one point of view!!
um, glad to see this topic has provoked some lively comment. er, always room for more than one opinion…!
Ah, thanks, Mike!
We can make “rules” of public speaking far too tough for ourselves. And they just get in the way. Ken Robinson’s Ted talk, “Do schools kill creativity?” has been watched by well over 39 million people. It has 14 filler words in the first two minutes. My guess is that not many of those 39 million people care or even notice.
When I coach people about it, I say don’t worry about them at all, but maybe you could learn to pause more. But you need to move from “panic pausing” to what I call “hot tub pausing”. Relaxed, spacious, not rushed pauses (you don’t have to take your clothes off!). The tyranny of the “ah counter” at Toastmaster speaking clubs makes many a speaker even more nervous about public speaking. Good speakers are relaxed, comfortable in their body and authentic. If speakers are taking the risk of being vulnerable and connecting well with the audience, then who cares about the odd “um” or seven.
Brilliant example, John, thanks. Indeed, Sir Ken Robinson’s talk is universally admired — and full of “um” and “ah.” Dare we say that comprehension of his talk improved because of them?
I like the lively discussion and various points of view-definitely room for more than one. I feel strongly than vocal fillers are distracting. Long before I became aware of and involved in improving communication, I was distracted by fillers.
Politicians and other influential people do it and get away with it because they are powerful ….for other reasons. Make no mistake, had they not been married to/connected with that person/have that business acumen, they would not have achieved that level of success on their dynamic speech abilities. Faaaar from it.
Some people have filler words specific to them (prolonged and, so, so like you know)
or to the type of conversation (formal, informal, work evaluation). When every third word is “but,” the brain has to work to filter out meaningful content from meaningless instead of processing the actual information.
Thanks, Michelle — feelings run high on this one. We are reluctant to let go of our strong beliefs even in the face of research that shows that fillers improve comprehension. I’m with you; I can’t abide “Like” and “You know” and long ago cured myself of them. But I’m coming around to taking a kinder view of “um” and “ah.” Just don’t get me started on the coordinating conjunction! I recently spent the day with a tour guide who never once ended his one endless sentence. It was all “and, uh,” “and, uh,” “and, uh” to string his thoughts together. Aaaaargh!
I will have to disagree completely. When if front of someone who has an audience, Um, Uh ing is extremely annoying. Listen to the most captivating speakers and you will notice very little if any at all. I too had a college tour with my daughter and could not even listen to a Communications Major who used them constantly. Maybe once our twice in a conversation adds to more attention but a long pause accomplishes even more I would suspect. Might have to do some independent research on this one. Great topic-thanks.
Thanks, James, for your perspective.
Gee Nick, as an expert on public speaking what would you encourage someone to do while improving speaking skills? Whistle down the yellow Um road? If it is so beneficial in speech, um, ah, I guess the same would apply to the um written word. Would it be OK for a pianist to habitually hit the wrong key? Maybe we can throw spelling out the window or punctuation to increase attention. Have you ever listened to President Obama in an interview? Probably 200+ “disfluencies” in 5 minutes. Totally distracting. We were also told at one time that eggs were bad for us also. So much for research. That being said, I’ve also heard speakers slip in plenty of ahs without hurting the context of the speech. Most of us will slip in an occasional um or ah and that won’t hurt the quality of the speech. You can’t stand some disfluencies so why is it encouraged to allow others? Practice only leads to more of them. My 2 cents on the matter.
Thanks, Ray — few topics have engendered as much passion as the ums and ahs one. People just can’t let go of the idea that umming and ahing are bad things — equivalent to wrong notes from a pianist, as you suggest! What the research is suggesting is that maybe you should start to think differently — disfluencies as markers of thought, not simply bad — but then, as you say, “so much for research.” I hope that, at the very least, the post causes “um counters” like yourself to — just for a moment — allow for another possibility. I was an um counter too, and have put a lot of energy into eliminating ums and ahs from my speech, so I feel your pain, Ray.
[…] any “ums” or “ahs” in your talk. Certainly, I felt that way a few years ago. But recently, reading articles like this one by speaker-coach Nick Morgan helped change my […]