Skip to content
It was my pleasure to be interviewed by my friend Joshua Brandt.
Josh is a respected journalist featured in the San Francisco Chronicle on several occasions.
Hope you enjoy the interview and find it beneficial. If you prefer to read instead of listening, you will find the transcript of the interview below.
Transcript:
Josh:
My impression was that to be an excellent public speaker, you needed to have an outgoing, vicarious personality. But a while back, you told me that wasn’t the case with you… I’m hoping you can elaborate on that now.
Peter:
Yeah, Josh. I am an introvert. I took the Myers-Briggs Personality Test, and I scored an 80% percent as an introvert. If you needed to be an outspoken person or an extrovert to be a great public speaker, then I wouldn’t have stood a chance.
For me, I have always been an introvert. However, over the years I’ve trained myself to become a situational extrovert. Where in front of an audience or front of clients, I can direct my attention outward and put it on the audience. I can be expressive as a natural extrovert.
Josh:
That’s interesting. What was your background before becoming a Public Speaker?
Peter:
I was an Engineer. I was a Pharmaceutical Engineer 10 years ago then I decided that it was not for me. I decided to change directions.
Josh:
Okay, I think most people listening would consider being a Pharmaceutical Engineer quite a huge leap to becoming a Public Speaker. Can you elaborate a little bit on how that transformation took place?
Peter:
Yes. I got into Engineering because I was good at Math and Chemistry, and I studied Chemical Engineering in school. To be honest, I went in that direction not solely because of my like for Chemistry and Math, but also to make my parents happy and proud.
Josh:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Peter:
I went into Pharmaceutical Engineering as a career, but after graduation and working in the field for awhile, I noticed that I was unhappy. I needed to do something different. I realized that my biggest obstacles were my communication skills. So I started taking acting classes and doing improv just to push myself out of my comfort zone. Then I realized that was the direction I wanted to go with my life. I started to pursue a career as a Professional Public Speaker.
Josh:
Was there, kind of an, “ah-hah” moment? When did it crystallize for you? When you thought, “Yeah, this Public Speaking is the venue for me.” Was there a set of circumstances or a particular incident that stood out?
Peter:
No, there wasn’t any particular event. It’s just that I’ve caught this bug called “Public Speaking.” I started speaking in public, and I started having small successes. Then I started directing my analytical skills and engineering skills toward this thing called “Public Speaking.” I began to use something called “Reverse Engineering,” and I applied it to great speeches and great speakers then I became addicted. Some people had asked me, “When did you know you wanted to become a Public Speaker?” My answer is that “It is just something that I discovered.”
I had this very early memory when I was a child. Probably while in the 1st grade, I remembered that almost every night for a year I would go to bed, lay in bed and I would close my eyes, and I would imagine that I was speaking to thousands of people. I don’t even remember what I would say… It’s just that I had this fantasy, where I didn’t even know what a Professional Speaker was at the time.
Josh:
You said a couple of things that I’d like to pursue a little further. You said, “Reverse Engineering Speeches.” I’m not exactly sure what that is. Could you clarify that?
Peter:
Sure. Right now, there’s a misconception in society that Public Speaking is an art. I bought into that misconception initially, and I thought it was an art. I thought you either had it, or you didn’t. Once I started looking at Public Speaking from the lens of an Engineer, I realized that there were patterns in Public Speaking
There are systems in place that if learned, you can do Public Speaking like the best speakers out there. That’s what I meant by “Reverse Engineering.” If you take a look at the best speeches out there, you can break them into specific structures that you can learn from, and you can apply this structure to different content. To me, that is a form of Engineering, that is “Reverse Engineering.”
Josh:
That’s an interesting concept. When you say, “Structured,” do you mean cadences or thought patterns? What exactly do structures mean to you?
Peter:
All of the above could be a structure of an idea, right? You can have, for example, one of my favorite structures called, “ The Past-Present-Future.” You can take this structure and apply it to any content. For example, if you’re talking about fitness, you’ll speak of fitness in the past, fitness in the present and fitness in the future. You can take the computer industry, and you can say, “Let me tell you about the computer industry in the past. Let me tell you about the computer industry now. Let me tell you about the computer industry’s future.
That’s a structure that you can copy and apply to any content you want. If you have a set of structured ideas in your head, then you can present them eloquently as speaker. That’s something I discovered. Good speakers are not born. Maybe they have a little advantage, genetically, but good public speaking is something that you learn.
Some of us, as kids were exposed to people in our lives who were good public speakers. Some picked up those patterns and structures unconsciously. Some were not as lucky. Take me for instance; I did not pick it up when I was a kid. However, I learned it as an adult. Now you know that’s what I do when I Reverse Engineer Speeches and Presentations. I look at the best presentations out there, and I Reverse Engineer them; I put them into structures anybody can copy. Anybody can sound eloquent when they fit their content into it.
Josh:
Can you give me an example of a Speaker that you thought was particularly eloquent or compelling that you used this Analytical Pattern for?
Peter:
Yeah, absolutely. My favorite speaker of all time that inspired me to get into this field was Tony Robbins. I’m sure you are familiar with Tony Robbins.
Josh:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Peter:
He’s viewed as a Motivational Speaker, as a Coach, and as an Inspirational Figure. When I first listened to Tony Robbins, I was in awe because I was like, “How the heck is he doing it?” Now a lot of my speech structures are based on him. A lot of what I teach is based on Tony Robbins and how he structures his thoughts, how he structures his presentations and how he structures his delivery on stage. He’s one of the main people I copy and imitate.
Josh:
When you were first starting out, you mentioned early successes. How did you define early successes? What constituted an early success for you.
Peter:
Early successes… My initial success was when I could I speak in front of an audience without the feeling of trepidation and anxiety. Those were feelings I often felt as an Engineer. I considered that early success. Then I remember my first time speaking at a ToastMasters and doing an Ice-Breaker that was the speech about myself. I barely lasted 30 seconds. That was my first time, and I barely lasted 30 seconds. Even though I had prepared three pages about myself before showing up. I stood up, and I opened my mouth, yet I couldn’t get the words out. I started sweating profusely. I mumbled, and I said, “Hi, my name is Peter. I’m an Engineer. I hate my job. Thank you,” and I left.
Right after that, I decided that I was going to make it work. My successes after that were, “I going to speak for 6 minutes.” That was my early success. Then my success changed over time. It became, “Now I can speak for 6 minutes. Can I engage an audience for 6 minutes?” or “Can I tell a story in 6 minutes? Can I make the audience laugh in 6 minutes? Then can I charge for my speech? Then, it changed to, how much can I charge? Can I charge more for my speech?” That’s how I built my career.
Josh:
Many polls out there have indicated that Public Speaking is a fear much greater than death. That’s a pretty stark comment.
Peter:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Josh:
Most people, at least rhetorically speaking, would rather die than give a public talk. What do you attribute that great fear to?
Peter:
Over the years, I researched the subject. I thought about it deeply, and I think there are two things going on here. That is, there are two sources for this fear. One, of course, is the “Genetic Fear.”
That is inherited genetically from our ancestors, who tried to avoid the eyes of predators. Am I right? What “eyes” meant back then was that somebody was looking at you to come and eat you. Our ancestors who either avoided the eyes and ran away from them or fought the eyes and won lived to pass on their genetic code.
Josh:
You’re talking about scrutiny.
Peter:
That’s …
Josh:
Right. right
Peter:
Yeah.
Josh:
Right. I think, what you’re saying is avoiding scrutiny. Avoiding being cast out, or the center of negative attention. In other words.
Peter:
Sure, absolutely. There’s also the social fear that is learned. All my life, both of my parents feared Public Speaking. Honestly, I think even though there’s the genetically inherited factor for fear, I also think there’s a learned factor of fear that I probably learned from my parents.
Josh:
Is it conversely also possible to be genetically gifted as a Public Speaker? To inherit some gene that translates into an ability to get up in front of an audience and deliver a speech?
Peter:
Yes, there is. However, it is very similar to fear, and I don’t believe it is the biggest factor.
Josh:
Let me ask you a question. What popular misconceptions about Public Speaking do you try to dispel? What do most people fear when they commit [inaudible 00:11:23], and how do you dispel some of those fears
Peter:
The biggest misconception that contributes to fear that I dismiss the concept of the mislabeling of Public Speaking. Most people, when they come to me, they go, “I want to get better at Public Speaking.” Then I know in their mind, they have a misconception of how do they define Public Speaking. I had that misconception as well where they think that every time they stand in front of an audience, they’re speaking to every single person at once.
Usually, that’s the source of fear because we are human beings. We are good at one on one connections. But we’re not good at speaking to, let’s say ten people at the same time or a hundred people at the same time. We just can’t take them all in. What I teach people is that there’s no such thing as Public Speaking. I teach them that there is a series of one on one conversations being strung together. Once they learn this, they start to look out at an audience as a group of singular individuals. They start to have one on one conversations with each singular individual as they make and move with their eye contact. Then the fear starts to go away.
Josh:
Hmm. That’s an interesting concept. I’ve never heard it phrased like that. In essence, you’re saying, approach a public talk. Single out a handful of people, intermittently
Peter:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Josh:
Imagine you’re having a normal conversation with them.
Peter:
Yeah. You don’t have to imagine. You’re good at one on one connections, as a human being. Almost every single person I’ve met, no matter how introverted they are or how extroverted they are, tell me, “Peter, I’m really good at one on one conversations. But I’m really bad at doing a public talk.” And I go, “Well, if you’re good at one on one conversations then you can be great at doing Public Talks if you do it the right way. That does not view it as you’re speaking to the whole group at once. Just look at individuals, and speak to those individuals one person at a time. I call this, “the Clinton Effect” which was a phrase I had coined.
Josh:
Interesting. You know, I was just about to bring that up, and I will tell you why.
Peter:
Yeah.
Josh:
And then you can elaborate. Bill Clinton is a classic extrovert, and Hillary Clinton seems to be a classic introvert.
Peter:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Josh:
He’s a much more addictive speaker than she is. I’m wondering if that has anything to do with they inherit attributes.
Peter:
I don’t think it is inherent attributes because I am an introvert. When I speak, I emulate Bill Clinton. I do it by looking at individuals one by one. I look at an individual when I’m speaking to a crowd, and I zoom in on them, almost so I don’t see anybody else except for that one person. That effect is called, “ the Clinton Effect.” You probably had heard it when people say, “When he looked at me, it felt like I was the only person in the room,” right? Now, you can have the same effect by looking at people. Just by zooming in on them and isolating them within your vision. This is going to trick your brain to think you’re speaking one on one.
Josh:
Is this a practice pattern that he had? Is this something he had said like, “This is a methodology I use,” or was it assumed?
Peter:
No, this is part of the “Reverse Engineering” that I do. I looked up Bill Clinton, and I learned about the effect. I learned how people respond when he looks at them, and I tried to duplicate it. I tested different ways of doing it until I found a way, where I was getting a similar response.
Josh:
Right. I guess my question is this, when Bill Clinton, you know, justifiably so, is lauded for his Public Speaking. Is this a method he said he uses? Or people just said, this is the Clinton effect?
Peter:
I coined it the “Clinton Effect.” This was not a method he said to use.
Josh:
I see.
Peter:
Yeah, I only noticed the effect where I’ve heard through interviews, where people were saying, “When he looked at me, I felt I was the only person in the room.”
Josh:
Hmm. On that note, speaking of Public Figures and Politicians. Can you off the top of your head give me a handful of people who you felt were very captivating Public Speakers?
Peter:
Yes. There is Oprah Winfrey who is a phenomenal speaker. Phenomenal in front of a crowd and also in front of a camera. She is taking Public Speaking to a whole new level.
Josh:
What makes her so phenomenal?
Peter:
When you’re watching Oprah Winfrey on TV, you look at her, and you feel like she’s speaking to you personally. That’s also what we may be should call “the Oprah Effect,” you know? She does the same thing. When she looks at you, she makes you feel like she’s looking at just you. The reason I said, she takes it to a whole new level is because she does that through the camera.
Josh:
Yeah, she seems to have an excellent ability to empathize and to create an intimate environment. That’s what I’ve noticed about her.
Peter:
Absolutely.
Josh:
Any other speakers that come to mind?
Peter:
Steve Jobs. Is a great speaker but for different reasons.
Josh:
Hmm. Really?
Peter:
Yes.
Josh:
Interesting, I’ve seen him a few times. I didn’t find him that compelling. What makes Steve Jobs such a good speaker?
Peter:
He makes technology very desirable. He’s got a gift for that. He takes complicated concepts, technology, and visions, and he makes it real. Maybe you didn’t find him appealing because you were not interested in the topic. Some people may not even find Clinton appealing or Obama appealing just because of the topic, right? That’s a different story.
Josh:
Yeah, well, I guess that could be the case. What he was … the topic he was addressing, maybe I didn’t find particularly interesting. I confused it with his lack of charisma or gifts as a public speaker. I get the Oprah reference. Steve Jobs, threw me for a loop. I never found him that compelling. Do you strip away any political affiliations or viewpoints?
Peter:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Josh:
And you just look at people objectively; I think most people would say Reagan was the best speaker in the past 25, 30 years.
Peter:
I agree 100% percent. I agree 100% percent. I use Reagan as an example in one of my training to demonstrate that point, actually of talking one to one. He does a great job with his content and his delivery.
Josh:
So you have Clinton, Obama, and Reagan. Three different personalities. Three distinct personalities. Can you notice a difference in their presentations? Each of them is a gifted speaker in their way. Anything that distinguishes that?
Peter:
Reagan, of course, you have to put it in a time frame. Right? Reagan’s style is a little bit out-of-date. For his time, he was fantastic. Also, the fundamentals were fantastic, but his public speaking style is different. Then you get Obama and Clinton.
Josh:
Hang tight. One second Peter. When you say the style is out-of -date or different, what does that mean?
Peter:
Public Speaking, like your clothes, has fundamentals to it. There are fundamentals to its’ design. Also, its’ style which changes over time. During Reagan’s time, he did what was expected of him as a Politician and as a Speaker style-wise. Which now, if Reagan came back, and still spoke with that style, it wouldn’t be as appealing. People will look at him and think, “Oh, he’s so old-fashioned and completely out-of-style. He needs to step up his game.” Does that make sense?
Josh:
Well, to a degree. I’m not an expert in Public Speaking; that’s why I’m doing the interview with you.
Peter:
Yeah
Josh:
I guess what’s … what is the style now that is so different from the mid-80’s? I mean how has the style of Public Speaking evolved over the past 30 years that he would seem outdated?
Peter:
It shifted. Initially in the 80’s. The early 80’s, Public Speaking used to be viewed as an art, and there were formalities to it. A public speaker shouldn’t say, “Ah’s and Um’s” often. There should be zero “Ah’s and Um’s” when they speak. The formalities also included the way they dressed and the way they moved on stage. For example, the way they moved their hands and how it was choreographed. I still know of people who were from that era who teach Public Speaking. I took courses from them. They would be telling me, “Oh, Peter, when you say, huge, you have to test 3 different ways of saying it with your hands and then decide which way is the best.”
That’s old school. That’s the old-style of Public Speaking. Nowadays, if you do that, you will be viewed as inauthentic and unreal. People won’t believe you as much. I see this with Hillary Clinton, for example. I think the reason she is viewed as an unauthentic speaker is that she does choreograph her movements a little bit. Where now the style is “to be authentic and to be real.” If you say some “ah’s and um’s,” that’s good. You don’t have to do it over. Just a little bit is good. With your hand gestures, you can’t just fake it. It has to be real. What do you normally do when you say the word big or huge? That’s authentic. That’s the style of Public Speaking today. It could change by tomorrow.
Josh:
In essence, you’re saying that the style of today is less formal.
Peter:
Right.
Josh:
It is much more informal.
Peter:
Informal. Exactly.
Josh:
I’ve done a little bit of reading about Public Speaking, and it seems as if there’s a misconception about movement. The articles I’ve read said that movement is a key to being an effective public speaker. Can you talk about that?
Peter:
Yes. Here’s a follow-up misconception. There are studies that show great speakers move on stage. People tend just to start moving on stage, and they start moving randomly on stage. The result is they end up getting a counter-effect. That is a negative effect because if you move too much on stage without purpose, you confuse your audience.
My theory on this is that: “You have to move on stage, and you have to move with purpose.” For example, let’s say you are making 2 points. Point A and Point B. If you want to move on stage then in Point A, you stand in one place, and when it is time to talk about Point B, you move to a different space on the stage.
This is called Spatial Anchoring, where you anchor each concept to a place on the stage. That’s how you move effectively and convey your ideas clearly.
Josh:
Mm-hmm, (affirmative) what would be the purpose of that? Do you people get bored just watching people stand in one place?
Peter:
You have to imagine when you’re speaking to an audience, and you’re giving them information. If you just place all this information in one place, things are going to get confusing. If you move on stage, and you separate the ideas with distance and space between them, the ideas become flushed out. It makes it easy to understand because now there are two separate concepts (Point A and Point B)
Let’s say you write on a piece of paper. In one paragraph, you write four ideas. If you do it that way, it’s going to be confusing for people because the ideas are not going to be separated. But, if you separate them, each idea becomes a paragraph. It becomes easy to understand.
Josh:
Yeah.
Josh:
I get the analogy. It’s interesting analogy. I can definitely grasp that. When most people approach you, and sign up for your classes. What are the biggest fears that they articulate?
Peter:
Most of the people who work with us, they’re professionals in Corporate America. Their biggest fear and biggest frustration, when it comes to Public Speaking is how it’s limiting their careers. It’s truthfully so. I think the new glass ceiling right now, in Corporate America is your communication skills.
These people know it because they keep bumping into it. They have the technological knowledge. They have the intelligence. They have the degrees, yet they feel like they’re stuck. The feedback they get from their manager is not clear. They say you have to be strategic. You have to be better at conflict management. When in fact, the truth is, they have to become great communicators, especially better communicators in front of large groups.
Josh:
Several months ago, you said something that really intrigued me. Obviously, I’m a fitness professional.
Peter:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Josh:
You said you recommended people get familiar with working out hard, getting their heart rates up, before they do Public Speaking. Can you elaborate on what you told me back then?
Peter:
Yeah, absolutely. When people get up to speak, and they feel nervous, they normally scan their bodies to see what’s different. The first obvious thing is the heart rate. They always say, “Oh, my God, my heart rate went up, and I couldn’t speak.” When in fact, their heart rate is not the problem.
Their heart rate is a good thing. Their heart rate is healthy. When you get up to speak, you need blood flowing to your brain. You need your heart rate to be up. The reason I brought it up with you is because I think if people start to exercise and notice that they can speak when their heart rate is up, they realize it is not the problem.
Josh:
Hmm
Peter:
Usually, the problem is breathing on stage. That’s why I was telling you about the heart rate because if they get used to their heart beating fast, it is not going to be the challenge for them in front of an audience. It will not put them in a panic.
Josh:
On that note, let’s wrap things up here with a final question. From panic to professionalism. Since you just mentioned the word, panic. Roughly, four classes? Six classes? I guess it depends on the individual. Is there a success trajectory that most people follow, regarding Public Speaking?
Peter:
Like you said. It depends on the individual. Where they start at. However looking at society, the average is so low, that it’s not hard to beat. Regarding Public Speaking. I would say, on average, our clients (i.e., the people who work with us) that usually after three months, they’ll start to notice that they are a little bit better than their peers. That gives them that high feeling. The feeling of success. They start to get the speaking bug just like I did.
Josh:
Okay, well, Peter. I enjoyed talking with you about Public Speaking and taking the time to address some of the misconceptions, and presumptions that people have about Public Speaking. There’re some interesting kernels of thought in there. Enjoyed your time, and thank you for your half hour. I look forward to talking with you again soon on the subject.
Peter:
All right, Josh. Thank you so much.[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
