{"id":3811,"date":"2026-10-21T07:35:31","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T23:35:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/talkshop.ph\/blog\/?p=3811"},"modified":"2026-10-21T07:37:55","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T23:37:55","slug":"public-speaking-experts-audience-understanding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/talkshop.ph\/blog\/public-speaking-experts-audience-understanding\/","title":{"rendered":"Your Expertise May Be Why You Are Losing the Room"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

By Dr. Sheila Viesca<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The presentation is accurate. The speaker knows the subject. The slides contain the right figures. Then someone asks a question that seems to belong at the beginning: \u201cWhat does this mean for us?\u201d The expert has explained the system, but the audience still cannot locate its own responsibility inside the explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would take that question seriously. Years of expertise make some connections almost automatic. A listener meeting the subject for the first time has to build those connections while the speaker continues. The distance between them is easy to underestimate because the expert no longer experiences the steps they are asking the audience to take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In TalkShop<\/a>\u2019s public speaking and corporate hosting program for the Department of Agriculture\u2013Philippine Carabao Center, participants practiced explaining technical concepts to different audiences while preserving accuracy. That work illustrates a professional obligation: an explanation must reach the people expected to use it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The audience has a different starting point<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The audience\u2019s question exposes a choice in preparation. You can organize the presentation around everything you know, or around what these listeners need to understand for a particular purpose. The second approach requires selection. Leaving something out can feel uncomfortable to an expert, especially when the detail demonstrates effort. Yet a listener\u2019s attention cannot serve as a complete record of the speaker\u2019s knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before opening your presentation software, write a brief answer to each question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b7Who will use this information and for what decision?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b7What can I reasonably assume they already know?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b7Which example makes the idea relevant to their work?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b7What should they be able to explain or do afterward?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cost of misunderstanding should help determine the order of an explanation. A listener making an irreversible decision needs the critical qualification before the supporting history. A listener exploring possibilities may need a wider view. Preparation therefore includes judging what a mistaken interpretation would cause, and where that risk first appears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suppose the subject is a new reporting system. The design team wants its architecture understood; the employees want to know what to do on Monday. If the speaker begins with development history and ends before explaining an exception, the employees have received information without the decision they need. I would start by establishing what the audience will be responsible for after the briefing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now consider the exception: a required figure is unavailable at the deadline. Employees need to know whether to submit a partial record, delay the report, or escalate the missing information. That choice reveals whether the briefing has prepared them to act. An explanation of the system becomes useful when it reaches the point where ordinary instructions no longer settle the decision for the user.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Write the audience\u2019s likely opening question at the top of your preparation notes. It might be, \u201cWhat changes for my team?\u201d or \u201cWhy should we adopt this recommendation?\u201d Answer that question early. Doing so gives the detail a purpose. Listeners can then connect the evidence to a concern they recognize, instead of waiting through several slides to discover why the subject requires their attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What knowledge makes difficult to notice<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The curse of knowledge helps explain this difficulty. In their 1989 experiments, Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Martin Weber found that better-informed participants struggled to set aside information when predicting less-informed people\u2019s judgments. The experiments concerned economic judgments. For a presenter, the useful connection is that knowing the answer can make it harder to reconstruct the questions a beginner still needs to ask. [1]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psychologist Loren Soeiro\u2019s discussion in Psychology Today brings this problem into everyday communication: familiarity can hide the assumptions an explanation requires. [2] For a speaker, the practical task is to locate those assumptions. Before introducing a conclusion, consider which terms, events, or connections the audience would need in order to follow the reasoning. Supplying that foundation takes preparation, even when the final explanation sounds effortless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem can hide inside one familiar word. A specialist says \u201cvalidation\u201d and imagines a specific sequence of checks. A colleague hears general approval. Both may believe the term is understood until an incomplete record moves forward. I would examine such words before adding more detail. Sometimes the missing explanation is the meaning of a term on which the entire instruction depends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Review your draft for words whose meaning depends on institutional experience. Ask which terms must be introduced and which can be replaced with ordinary language. Keep a technical term where precision requires it, but explain what it changes in the situation being discussed. A definition becomes more useful when the audience can connect it with a task, decision, or consequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One practical exercise is to ask a colleague outside your specialty to describe the explanation back to you. Listen without supplying the missing connections. Notice the point at which they substitute a different meaning or become uncertain about the sequence. That moment identifies preparation work for the speaker. It does not establish that the listener lacks the intelligence to understand the subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Language differences deserve the same preparation as differences in technical knowledge. When the audience includes people using English as an additional language, examine unnecessary idioms, unexplained abbreviations, and references that depend on local familiarity. Preserve the necessary terminology and allow time for processing. Where a written summary would help, provide one that identifies the central decision and the terms needed to understand it. Ask about the explanation rather than assuming silence reflects agreement. A capable listener may need a clearer reference point, particularly when an unfamiliar concept and an unfamiliar expression arrive in the same sentence. Make the connection explicit before proceeding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Build the route from information to meaning<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An example is a decision about relevance. If the audience must approve a budget, show how the proposed change affects the choices they control. If the audience must operate a process, show where an exception enters and what they should do with it. The same evidence can remain important in both settings, while the route into it changes considerably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An example should make the idea easier to use without changing its essential meaning. A familiar comparison can introduce a concept, but it can also hide an important limitation. Before using an analogy, identify where it stops working. Explain that boundary when it matters. The purpose is to give the listener a useful starting point while preserving the accuracy of the subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suppose you compare a reporting system with a shared notebook. The comparison may help explain why several people need access to the same record. It may not explain permissions, audit history, or validation. Those differences could be central to implementation. Use the comparison to establish the shared idea, then move into the actual conditions that govern the system the audience will use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A procurement officer, teacher, and customer service representative may each recognize a different consequence of an unclear handover. The underlying communication principle can remain the same. What changes is the situation that gives it meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would look for the point where the audience must connect evidence with consequence. A figure can be correct and still leave its significance unstated. After showing it, say what it changes about the recommendation. If it changes nothing, consider why the audience needs it now. The speaker should do the work of making that connection visible before moving to the next slide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experts sometimes organize a presentation according to how they discovered the answer. That sequence may include false starts, technical branches, and historical details that helped the expert learn. The audience may need a different path. Begin with the question they face, establish the information required to answer it, and show how the evidence supports the conclusion. Include the history where it affects the interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A hypothetical project briefing might follow the decision in a simple order. Explain the current difficulty, show the evidence that establishes it, compare the feasible responses, and recommend the next step. If uncertainty remains, identify what it could change. This structure allows listeners to examine the reasoning. They can ask whether the evidence supports the recommendation rather than merely accepting the speaker\u2019s confidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transitions should make that reasoning visible. After describing a finding, explain its consequence for the audience. Before moving to a new topic, show why it is needed. A transition can be an ordinary sentence: \u201cThat delay matters because the next team cannot begin until the record is complete.\u201d The listener receives the connection at the point where they need it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What the slides should carry<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Rehearse the opening aloud without looking at your slides. Can you explain why the subject matters to these people before introducing the technical detail? If you cannot, more animation on the deck is unlikely to solve the problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A slide should help the audience inspect something that is difficult to hold in memory. It might display a comparison, show a sequence, or preserve the wording of a requirement. Its usefulness depends on what the listener must do with it. A dense page of text may contain accurate information while competing with the speaker for attention. Decide which details belong on the screen and which belong in supporting material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When presenting a figure, name what it measures before explaining why it matters. Identify the period, unit, and relevant comparison. Avoid treating an upward line as self-explanatory. The audience needs to know whether it represents volume, quality, cost, or a change in how the data were collected. Where the interpretation is uncertain, make that uncertainty part of the explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Try removing one slide that seems indispensable and explaining the central recommendation aloud. If the argument collapses, identify the connection the slide was supplying. You may need the visual, particularly for a complicated comparison, but you also need language that guides people through it. The exercise reveals whether the speaker can preserve the meaning when the usual support is unavailable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question that reveals the missing connection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

During the presentation, listen closely to questions. A request for clarification can reveal a missing connection in your explanation. Answer it directly, then check whether the group needs that connection made explicit before you continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Replace the habitual \u2018Any questions?\u2019 with a question that tests application: \u2018If this occurred in your department, what would you do first?\u2019 An answer can reveal understanding or expose a missing step. Avoid turning the exchange into a public examination. Give people a moment to think, and make it acceptable to describe what remains unclear. The purpose is to learn what your explanation has made possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A speaker can misread the absence of questions for the same reason a manager can misread a nod. The exchange is public, and a listener may not want to announce where understanding stopped. Instead of demanding a question, offer a situation. Ask which action would follow. The answer gives you evidence about the explanation without requiring someone to introduce themselves through what they do not know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A useful question might be, \u201cIf the supporting document is incomplete, which step should happen before approval?\u201d This checks a decision within the explanation. It also allows the speaker to discover whether the sequence was clear. Avoid making the person who answers incorrectly the subject of the lesson. Return to the explanation, identify the missing connection, and let the group try a comparable situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a large or online audience, a brief written response can provide another route. Ask participants to identify the first action they would take or the point they still need clarified. Use the responses to adjust the next section. The method should fit the purpose and available time. Participation is useful when it reveals understanding that the speaker can act upon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An experienced presenter also needs to respect the boundary of their knowledge. If a question requires information you have not verified, say so precisely. Identify what you can answer, what requires checking, and when an update can reasonably be provided. Audiences can work with a clear limit. A confident guess may be far more difficult to repair later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A difficult question may challenge the evidence, the recommendation, or the speaker\u2019s authority. Before responding, identify which of those it concerns. A question about the data should receive an answer about the data. A question about implementation may require a discussion of resources. Treating every challenge as a threat to credibility can lead the speaker to answer defensively before understanding the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A precise limit can be more useful than an expansive answer. \u201cThat figure covers the pilot group; I have not verified the wider population\u201d tells the audience how far the evidence reaches. It also preserves the distinction between an observed result and a possible interpretation. A speaker who protects that distinction gives listeners a sounder basis for judgment than one who answers every question with equal certainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a question exposes a weakness in your explanation, use it. Clarify the assumption, revise the sequence, or acknowledge that the recommendation depends on a condition you had not made explicit. Professional credibility can survive an incomplete answer when the speaker handles the limit responsibly. A confident answer that later proves unsupported creates a more difficult problem for everyone relying on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What listeners can do after you finish<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Confidence helps you speak. Audience awareness helps you decide what deserves to be said. Both require practice, and experienced presenters benefit from feedback as much as beginners do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public speaking development should give the learner a defined behavior to practice. \u201cBe more confident\u201d offers little direction. \u201cState the audience\u2019s decision before introducing the technical detail\u201d creates an observable task. A coach can listen for it, the speaker can attempt it again, and both can compare the effect on understanding. Feedback becomes easier to use when it concerns a choice within the learner\u2019s control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practice should also resemble the setting in which the skill will be used. A specialist preparing for an executive briefing needs questions about recommendations and tradeoffs. A teacher needs to explain a concept and check whether learners can apply it. An event host needs to handle transitions and unexpected changes. General speaking exercises have value, but transfer requires attention to the actual responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the presentation, I would be interested in the listener\u2019s next action. Can they explain the recommendation to somebody else without changing its meaning? Can they identify a condition that requires checking? Their account may reveal a gap that applause and favorable comments leave invisible. Use it to revise the explanation for the next audience, while preserving the parts that already make the subject usable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the next important briefing, let a capable person outside your specialty hear the opening. Ask them what decision the presentation is preparing them to make. Listen without completing their answer. Where they lose the connection, the explanation still has work to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expertise gives you more to say than the audience can reasonably absorb.<\/strong> The professional judgment lies in selecting the path that lets them use what matters. When someone asks, \u201cWhat does this mean for us?\u201d, your preparation should already have made room for the answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explore related TalkShop programs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

TalkShop customizes public speaking and presentation training for professionals who need to explain specialized work to different audiences. Explore communication programs or inquire about a tailored engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explore the relevant TalkShop offering<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sources and further reading<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

[1] Primary research. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1232\u20131254. doi:10.1086\/261651.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2] Commentary and further reading. Soeiro, L. (2021, April 28). What\u2019s the curse of knowledge, and how can you break it? Psychology Today. Reviewed by Gary Drevitch.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

TalkShop program context<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

TalkShop. (2026, September 24). TalkShop strengthens government communication competencies through DA-PCC workforce upskilling program.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Dr. Sheila Viesca The presentation is accurate. The speaker knows the subject. The slides contain the right figures. Then someone asks a question that seems to belong at the beginning: \u201cWhat does this mean for us?\u201d The expert has explained the system, but the audience still cannot locate its own responsibility inside the explanation. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3816,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,10,1],"tags":[6],"class_list":["post-3811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-individual","category-trainings","tag-featured"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t