SD and the ELEVATOR

["Lane,DC"]

Ive been amazed at the stern-faced over-seriousness of this
discussion. Is the american phrase lighten up, people?

Of course any 30 second summary of a field will involve a degree of
simplification that makes us uncomfortable. When Feynman received his
Nobel he was asked by a journalist to say in two minutes what he had
done. He replied, "Listen buddy, if I could describe it in two minutes
it wouldnt be worth a Nobel Prize". Quite. For an example of the
absurdity of an actual attempt at this, see Tom Stoppards plays
Doggs Hamlet and Cahoots Macbeth which contain versions of Hamlet
at 30, 10 and 2 minutes!
However, I think that a field that has to keep reminding itself that
it is so rich and wonderful that it can in no way be conveyed briefly is
a field a little lacking in confidence. Why? Because we have been
assuming that we - the speaker - are the only one aware of the
simplification involved in the 30 second summary. I think that we should
credit our listener with rather more intelligence. They KNOW that they
are only getting a faintest glimmer of a subject that is summarised for
them in 30 seconds. But sometimes that glimmer is worth passing on.

Sometimes a brief version IS all we can get away with. To return to
the previous example, the 30 minute Hamlet was actually written in
Czechoslovakia during the Cold War for performance in private homes,
Shakespeare having been banned by the state. Its easy - particularly if
you are English! - to turn up your nose at the thought. But to its Czech
audience it was the only glimmer that they could get. And they certainly
knew that they were not getting the whole story (figuratively and
literally).

Let me end with two more thoughts in praise of the 30 second
glimmer (perhaps a better name for it than SD in 30 seconds). Firstly,
another physicist. Lord Rutherford once observed that "no piece of
physics is worth a damn unless you can explain it to a barmaid". Now if
you can get over the repulsive sexism, which I admit is not easy, there
is an important point being made here about the social responsibility of
scientists and the importance of conveying ideas to non-specialists.
Second story. I once asked my sister-in-law to describe the
subject of her recently completed PhD "in a couple of sentences".
Feynman-like, she reeled back in horror. I pressed her with "but
Annette, Id just like to know a bit about what you did. I have no idea
at the moment". I then saw her attitude transformed as she found the
intellectual challenge appealing and realised that she would like me to
know. After a few moments thought she produced the superb: "I studied
instrument data from nuclear reactors to see how mathematical analysis
could tell one something about the structure of the core." I went away,
thought about it for a bit and came back to talk to her about time
series analysis methods. Sitting here now I have a copy of her
Universiteit Hanover thesis on my shelf at LSE. Ive read it. Thats
what the glimmer did for me. And it happened because she had the
intelligence to realise that we both knew that it was only a glimmer but
that it could lead to further things.

So, I think that we should be willing to try to convey the most fleeting
and dim sense of our subject to anyone who asks. If they are stupid then
theyll think theyve got it. But if we get it right it "could be the
beginning of a beautiful relationship".

From: "Lane,DC" <D.C.Lane@lse.ac.uk>

[JJuhasz@aol.com]

Following the recent thread on the "SD soundbyte in the Elevator," DC Lane
recently wrote:

>" Youd probably have to say it very fast but Ive recently used (well,
> written): ... "


I am reminded of the old TV commercial where the American Express guy (or
was it a different guy) was speaking so fast that is was amazing and amusing
to all, except nobody understood or remembered the message. The temptation
to conveniently soundbyte the SD message, with all of its critical import and
relevance to corporations and institutions as a strategic decision support
weapon, puts it into similar peril.

One question which must be raised by all this is -- So now we can see how to
cleverly soundbyte some critical SD points into a 30 second timebox, but --
WHY is it necessary? In our usual rush to apply the KISS principle for the
sake of convenience we often tend to ignore the fact that some things are NOT
inherently simple to contemplate or communicate, and deserve to have a
thorough consideration and debate in an organizational setting. Someone
please tell me, convincingly, how many significant culture changes or
corporate transformations actually began in the elevator???

The only remaining question on the SD elevator soundbyte might be - if the
talker was not finished when the listeners floor was reached, how long would
he stay to let him finish??

John E. Juhasz
jjuhasz@aol.com

[Jay Forrest]

I really enjoyed Lanes physics metaphors and stories for the elevator speech!

When pressed to describe my role in a few words I usually say,

"I help goldfish recognize and understand water!"

Jay Forrest

The Strategic Decision Simulation Group (SDSG, L.L.C.)
jayf@sdsg.com
http://www.sdsg.com
(281)493-5022 (voice) (281)558-3228 (fax)