The NLP Conference 2018 was a great success. My talk was well-received and I think it made a small impression.
The 2019 conference talk, however, wasn’t quite so well received.
The reason for this was, in my delusion, that the audience were level 3. The talk was aimed at level 4’s and my theory is definitely aimed at those leaving 3 and moving to 4. If you consider that the NLP community is a community, and as such, embedded in socialised thinking, it’s fairly obvious that I would lose some of them along the way. I was prepared to lose some of them.
What I wasn’t prepared for was the number of people who left negative comments about my talk, simply because they didn’t get it. The irony being, their feedback validated the content of my talk that said the NLP community needs to move out of level 3 and into more level 4 thinking if it is to gain any kind of academic acceptance.
If you are thinking of using my doctoral research to develop your teams, it is important to know how some might receive it if I have failed to address my delivery since the conference. On the other hand, if your higher management team is upwards of level 3 thinking – unlike the average NLPer – then you have nothing to worry about.
Only 2 people said my talk was excellent. The other 4 said it had room for improvement. That “room” would be to lower the level of complexity upon delivery so they “get it”. However, that is not my intention.
Feel free to read the feedback below. The final comment is actually a positive one even though it is directed at being a negative.
|Darren needs to learn how to present his material in a way that makes it easy for people to engage with it. A little scene-setting at the beginning would have made a big difference.|
|It gave me new insights on how to interpret meta-profiles.|
|Crammed with content but maybe too much. The audience requested that he talk slower but this was not the case. He had so much information that some of it was confusing and not explained well. Very research based. Lots of deletions on his part. [using a pattern here to judge my talk]|
|Extremely complicated and obtuse material which was difficult to understand. I could not see the point of the presentation, other than to show off how extremely clever Darren thinks he is.|
|I left in the middle cause it was very boring for me|
|Darren Steven’s session on his PhD research into metaprogrammes was my least favourite session. There was some excellent content but it was badly organised and presented so it was hard to follow. I felt that was a real shame because Darren is clearly passionate about what he’s doing and his PhD will be a great contribution to NLP. He just needs a good presentation skills training!|
|My least favourite session was Darren Stevens|
|Least favourite session was the awful Darren Stevens with his excessively complicated way of showing his own superiority|
|Least favourite session – very disappointing|
|Least favourite session – this was not NLP at all|