This advice is certainly correct for public speaking, but for conversation, I've observed that saying "uh" and "um" is actually a good habit for most people. They convey clearly that you intend to speak soon. Without them, others interrupt or assume you're not listening. It's quite understandable that people would bring that good habit to a new context where it's surprisingly counterproductive.
Maybe it's because I can be 'long winded' and have put effort into curbing that habit, but I find that the 'uh/uhm/ehm/mmm' interjections can be removed from conversation as well. I have to put more effort into saying just enough to communicate an interesting idea and _stop there_. It mostly means thinking before I speak rather than as I speak... The latter pattern is what results in rambling on; thinking as you speak rather than before is sort of like speaking as you would write, but without the editing you would do next.
Part of that idea for conversing without 'uh/uhm' came from employee-to-employee advice I read somewhere about preparing memos for meetings with Jeff Bezos at Amazon. It was something along the lines of: have all your facts and answers ready but don't put everything in the memo; economize the information you put to paper down to what's essential, so he doesn't waste time reading more than he needs to and has questions to ask, but make sure you have the answers ready.
That same advice can be adapted to conversation. Figure out how to communicate one discrete idea, but don't try to answer every concern/question the listener might have before they ask about it, even if you have those answers ready or are thinking about them as you talk. Let the other person speak and engage with the idea, then answer the questions they do ask. If you come to an 'uh/uhm' point in your own words, the other person probably has a question/concern/thought already (and it might not be the one you're about to 'uhm' into).
I agree, and that's why I qualified with "most" people. It takes exceptional communication skills to reliably command other people's attention without much effort in casual conversation, unless you use some kind of trick. Uh/um is a simple tool to help less experienced communicators express their thoughts. I think of it like a temporary scaffolding on the way to becoming a great communicator.
Actors, comedians, and politicians all have memorized scripts, lines, routines, and soundbites. I'm very curious as to what hathawsh's eventual answer to baxtr's question will be, because I consider their comment at the top of this thread to be utterly counterproductive and unhelpful. Oftentimes, HN threads have a top comment that is contradictory to the post for the sake of being contradictory. In this case, the comment is both contradictory and harmful. Literally no one learning or teaching communication says that "uh" and "um" are good habits. In fact, I would go even further than the article asserts and claim that I succeed socially the more silent I am. People are self-absorbed; they like people who listen to them.
The Wikipedia article on formulaic language (pointed out by another commenter, thank you!) is helpful here.
"There is strong empirical evidence that speakers use formulaic language in similar ways across languages and that formulaic language plays a fundamental role in the structuring of spontaneous speech, as they are used to achieve a better synchronization between interlocutors by announcing upcoming topic changes, delays related to planning load or preparedness problems, as well as speaker's intentions to take/give the floor or to revise/abandon an expression he/she had already presented."
In conversation, formulaic language can help you seem more relatable to other people. Think of Indiana Jones, the beloved hero who often used formulaic language to express himself, as compared with the villains, who barely varied from perfectly formed sentences. You can see the same pattern in countless stories because the writers target an audience that feels more comfortable with people who talk that way.
> Actors, comedians, and politicians all have memorized scripts, lines, routines, and soundbites.
They recite some of the time, but most their overall speech is improvised. Generally, people in these kinds of roles are pretty good at that too.
> In this case, the comment is both contradictory and harmful. Literally no one learning or teaching communication says that "uh" and "um" are good habits.
It depends on how meta you want to get. As a beginner learning how to give speeches, you work to expunge these kinds of "filler" words. However, at "expert level" you might use these words to seem more "authentic", and/or to appear as if you're forming thoughts for the first time.
It depends on the audience and what you're trying to communicate, which goes beyond what you say to how you say it.
You're doing casual conversation wrong. Wit is all about timing, for example, and people love casually witty people. People dislike people telling boring tales of their lives, but if you add a little tension, even a trip to the market can seem interesting.
My problem is that I often think by proxy of conversation. My ramblings are a kind of experimentation which then leads to some good ideas or insights ones in a while.
> I've observed that saying "uh" and "um" is actually a good habit ... Without them, others interrupt or assume you're not listening.
I have a little theory about interruptions. Humans are a social animal and people tend to listen very carefully to apes higher up on the social ladder. Grunts don't interrupt generals. Peasants don't interrupt the president.
Hence, if you are being interrupted when silent, it is information to you that the person who interrupts you think you are lower on the social ladder than they are.
More important, however, is that you, by ignoring interruptions, are saying to the listener that you are equal on the social ladder and expect to be listened to. There are many ways to handle interruptions. If you are presenting to a group, one way to do it is to simply back up a few seconds and keep talking where you were at the interruption. Search will give you more tools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSWVAUqqQ6Q
So, be silent, demand respect from the listener, and stand your ground.
I happen to look at the “um/uh” situation totally differently.
For instance, a subordinate will want to make sure he can get in all his thoughts with his boss by making sure he can fill a gap of silence while he’s thinking. A boss has no such problem - when he talks people listen. Well they better.
> Novice speakers employ these unnecessary noises seemingly because they dread the "sound of silence." It's as if someone told them public speaking means that something must always be coming out of their mouth, at all times, under all conditions, no matter what
> The most common justification for all this grunting and groaning is, "I'm not always certain of the next thing to say, so I need time to think of it."
It's not a justification as much as it is the unability to explain why they make those sounds. I myself have problems with public speaking and the problem is neither that I want to fill the void, because I don't know better, nor is it that I'm not certain of what I want to say. It is my fight or fly reflex that makes it hard to concentrate or remember what words I want to use. Even when I could before quote it backwards. It's condecending how the whole article says that silence is better than "um". No shit sherlock, if somebody had told me earlier I could have imrpoved so many of my presentations.
Edit: My wife seems to share the opinion of the author, so maybe I was unfairly harsh. For me it is a sore subject since I struggle with public speaking in general.
Topic 1: novice public speakers make those sounds because they draw their learning and experience from conversation. In a conversation, you're taking turns, and doing some noise is the signal that you're not yielding your turn yet. When speaking in public, at least in the context of a civilized presentation, you don't need it, because the audience has tacitly agreed to just listen to you, but your conversational habits are so ingrained that you still apply them by sheer habit.
Topic 2: the reason you can't concentrate on what you're saying is that a group paying attention to what you're saying is a threatening situation, and you are in alert mode, probably adrenaline and other related signals high in your bloodstream. It's pretty hard to concentrate in your thoughts about whatever rational topic while you're body is telling you every way it can that you are in danger. You can't speak well in public until you stop feeling in danger, and the best way to get there is to do it a lot. Maybe you are in danger, because a large number of people's judgement of you may be swayed with just one sentence you said, but you just need to get accustomed to a higher-stakes game (or drop it, you don't have to, but that's what it is). Source: developer who's been programming for 30 years and who's done a ton of stand-up comedy in the last 5. Nothing like that to really become good at public speaking...
This is very different in oratory vs. conversation, especially depending on the conversation style of the people you're speaking with. In some conversations, if you don't put in an "uh" or "um" when you pause, you'll immediately be assumed to be done speaking and will be interrupted.
That's the first thing you learn at Toastmasters. Saying "um" all the time just makes you sound insecure whereas silence used strategically exudes confidence.
I remember some teachers would just stand silently in front of the room until people were silent. It may have taken a while but then they had control of the class.
To the opposite, I've found often you can't have a meaningful progress until you start allocating time in your speech with those placeholders. Otherwise people would assume you're finished with what you wanted to say or don't have something to add and start talking.
In conversation you also have the benefit of being able to effectively use body language to communicate the delay without resorting to “uhhhh” or other sounds that make people seem uncertain or dim.
Some Toastmasters clubs even have an ah-counter role. Ours gets a little rubber duck and makes it squeak whenever the presenter start erm-ing, ah-ing or uh-ing. Distracting as hell but on the other hands that distraction motivates to avoid it next time.
Interesting article and interesting comments here. My personal experience is that by working to remove the um, and ahs in my presentations I did get more attentive audiences. For me it was a combination of rehearsing what I was going to say a bit more (so the conversation had already spooled out a couple of times from my brain) and being ok with letting the last thing I said just hang out there. Of course there are good times and bad times for that, I've heard speakers use cliff hanger statements to engage their audiences.
In general two-way conversation I'm not so sure. Does it make them better? Does it break them up? That is something that is less certain for me.
The idea that discourse markers are "useless" and meaningless has become conventional wisdom, but this characterization is considered flawed by those who actually study their usage[1]. Some roles they play include creating flow in speech and demonstrating authenticity.
from the perspective of a blue collar speaker (I'm a master mechanic for a chain of truck repair shops in the Midwest) I hold a safety meeting once a week with a similar rule. No weird breaks.
I learned this style of speaking in the Army. Basically in our 15 minute safety meeting I cover what's happening, why, things that were dangerous, and what we need to do to be safe. Our upper management sees this style as confrontational but its extremely effective.
Just so you have a word for automatic speech (um, ah, etc), oftentimes in the speaking community you hear reference to embolalias, or formulaic language.
Overuse of 'like' is like nails on a chalkboard to me. You could be the smartest person in the world but if you use 'like' unnecessarily when speaking to me I can't help but discredit your points.
So, like, if people use speech patterns that you dis-like, then you discredit their arguments regardless of logic or factual accuracy?
Dude, that's like totally fallacious reasoning. ;-)
> The most common justification for all this grunting and groaning is, "I'm not always certain of the next thing to say, so I need time to think of it."
I knew someone whose strategy in this situation was simply to speak
with
lots
of space
between
...
each word.
Thereby supplying himself an opportunity to think.
I've noticed a similar, but less extreme strategy that a lot of polished speakers seem to use: they'll insert large gaps every now and then, but not in the places you'd expect. Rather than doing it between two different ideas, or at a point where you'd expect them to need to pause for thought, they'll stop at a point where the next words are quite obvious. Then when they resume, they'll ride smoothly through those more natural break points.
In conversation I think this is a way of holding the floor (it's harder to interrupt someone who is obviously in the middle of a thought or a sentence). When addressing an audience, perhaps it adds an air of authority -- it enables you to eliminate obvious pauses for thought, by substituting what feel like pauses for effect.
Not saying um & ah allows you to feign complete ignorance. These days that’s a huge bonus. Especially in academia,I’m finding its best to pretend to be a complete fool than to say um & expose your cards. If you say um people respond “Yes do you have something to say? “ Now you are forced to actually speak up & say what you were really thinking, which in this day & age of excessive PC especially in academia can get you into tight situations really fast. Its so much better to say nothing & play dead.
