Content vs Structure, Integration

[MLK1111]

Hello All,

I wanted to share how I am synthesizing and integrating some of the profound insights from Actualized.org into my course at Northwestern University School of Law School.  Specifically, in an assignment for a class called Effective Professional Communication where we are taught how to apply persuasive communication, effectively and professionally.  

Coincidentally, the first time I heard Leo’s lecture on “Content vs Structure” was back in 2019 and I just so happen to be Northwestern University’s campus grounds, working on a construction project.  At the time, my beliefs were so limited I  could not envision myself as a law student because I believed I wasn’t smart enough and the effort it would take to be in the position to become a high performing student as such an institution was only a dream.  I want to give credit to Leo’s lecture as a source of inspiration and a teacher who helped me begin the process of jail breaking my mind.  As he repeated says, these teaching can take years, even decades to integrate so you might as well start now.

In a discussion post assignment this week I was asked to respond to the following prompt:  

“Describe a piece of oral presentation (in person or online) that you consider excellent.  You should limit yourself to either one aspect of the full presentation or one point of analysis.  For example, you might discuss how the tone of the speaker made a dull subject compelling.  Other aspects to highlight would include visual aids, argument structure, use of the stage, humor, audience identification, use of language etc.  In responding to posts, try to develop some norms for the specific attribute cited.  The goal is to look for both an understanding of best practices and the possibilities for creating a useful tension between expectations (norms) and enallage (deliberately misusing grammar or other rhetorical practice).”

 

My Post

When I read this assignment, I was excited because I have many oral presentations in mind that I consider excellent and, at risk of sounding grandiose, also life changing.  I love intellectually engaging lectures that help me grow.  That said, while I have many personal favorites there is one, after careful contemplation, that stands out above the others, in the context of this class and the task of this assignment.  That oral presentation is by Leo Gura of Actualized.org, titled “Content vs Structure.”  https://www.actualized.org/articles/content-vs-structure  (Other favorites at the end if you’re interested)

Now, I realize not everyone will be interested in this topic, nor will they find value in the lecture the way I did upon listening for the first time.  Therefore, if you decide to reply to my post, you need only listen to the first thirteen minutes of the long-form lecture to get an outsized gain relative to time investment (minutes 0:00 to 12:44).  That said, if you only have a minute or two to invest, focus on minutes 1:48 to 2:29 where Gura connects his core concept to the English language relative to other languages.  What makes that moment compelling is how Gura “goes meta”, prompting the listener to notice how language shapes interpretation, then grounds the listener’s attention back to the “content vs structure” frame.    

So what aspect of Gura’s lecture do I consider especially excellent?  My perspective is it is in his application of a framework called “recursive framing,” where he repeatedly returns to the core framing of “content vs structure” while exploring the concept with depth from many perspectives backed by relatable examples.  Doing so serves as cognitive cohesion for listeners via a continuous upward spiral of learning, allowing the listener to learn but also learn how to learn (the meta move).

Moreover, Gura’s meta viewpoint flags the common point of failure in value systems and worldviews, specifically pathological fixation on “content” while missing the underlying “structure” of a thing.  Such fixation creates a situation where thinking becomes locked in a particular paradigm with no way out.  That is, until the “structure” enters consciousness, creating new conditions where the mind can jailbreak itself from that paradigm.

Pedagogically speaking, the method of recursive framing creates a scaffolding for the mind, reducing cognitive load, especially when communicating dense or abstract material.  The scaffolding acts as guardrails, keeping the audience from getting tangled in their own thoughts, continually drawing attention to and bringing the audience back to the “structure.”

Additionally, recursive framing introduces rhetorical enallage by “abusing” the expectation of linear progression and the professional norms that value simplicity, getting to the point, and time efficiency.  A linear progression, by design, does not repeat itself; it does not pause to discuss what the audience might be thinking, and it rarely turns inward to assess its own assumptions.  Gura, on the other hand, breaks this norm deliberately.  He makes the meta move, commenting on the listeners’ interpretive habits, then restates the core framework to ground attention.

Last, in terms of a norm we could extract for our class, a brief “meta” communication early in a presentation could be delivered on how to listen in addition to the agenda, when the presenter invites the audience to listen with purpose and engagement.  And invite the audience not to resist the repetition, rather give it functional embrace, where each return adds purpose, clarity, correction, and application.

(Other favorites if you’re interested)

“The Psychology of the Joker,” by Alan Watts (YouTube), https://www.organism.earth/library/document/the-joker

“How Inspirational Leaders Inspire Action” by Simon Sinek (TedTalk), www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA

“Introducing The Theory” by Clare W. Graves, www.clarewgraves.com/theory_content/audio/CG_clip1.mp3

[Leo Gura]

Nice!

Gald to see you advancing your education.