1. This is not tested. The few here giving lectures are the front line troops. The rest of us are REMF's - rear eschalon . . . staffers. A very good salesmen will not take what he is told from a staffer. He will hear it and pull from it only what fits for his personality, and his audience, and his objective. Any good lecturer who gives the same speech will modify the talk over time, keeping and enhancing what works, and tossing out that which doesn't. The point being is to take only what you want and then test it for effect.

2. The objective is to win. There is always a final score. The objective is not to give a lecture. The objective is to convince the largest number of minds that EE/GE is correct or at least should be seriously studied. Losing at the lecture is not good.

3. A look at the numbers. Set realistic exectations by knowing the numbers. It is often assumed that all of the hearts and minds can be converted. They can't, they won't, and it doesn't matter. Certain "rule of thumb" numbers always apply. The 20/80 rule. 20% of your customers will supply you with 80% of your business. Very closely true in every business. So, to set the maximum number available, only 20% of an audience could you usefully convert. I say useful, because you want them to help the cause in the future. The rest are not going to be persuaded. How many are on this EE board? About 40. How many primarily contribute?

A more valid number is to look at the statistics of people within new product introductions and the psychology behind them. The percents vary in studies so I will round:

3% Innovators
13% Early Adopters
34% Early Majority
34% Late Majority
16% Laggards.

The first 2 are the only targets. What do we know about them?

Innovators are Venturesome. They are willing to try new ideas at some risk.

Early Adopters are guided by Respect. They are opinion leaders in their community and adopt new ideas early but carefully.

Early Majority are Deliberate. They adopt new ideas before the average person, although they rarely are leaders.

Late Majority are Skeptical. They adopt an innovation only after a majority of people have tried it.

Laggards are Tradition Bound. They are suspicious of changes, mix with other tradition bound people, and adopt the innovation only because it has taken on a measure of tradition itself.

I leave it up to you to categorize where the scientific community falls. I would say your target is the Innovators - so 3%. You may hope to push that up to 20%. Anything more is of course up to you.

4. The 30 Second Answer: There is none. I was wrong. There never was. There never will be. Not in our life times. The subject is too complex. The audience is too undereducated. We assume they know more in unrelated specialties than they do.

Some may take their lecture time to explain only the theories or an explanation of cause and then short change the physical evidence for EE. Those concentrating on physical evidence for EE don't have time for lengthy and convincing explanations of "the cause". So, can anytthing be done? Yes, but we have to understand what is really happening.

5. It is Not an Elevator Speech! I was wrong, I thought it was. Jim used this phrase also. It is not. It is just the opposite of an elevator speech. Run, it is a trap designed to do you harm. It is an ambush. It is a trick. Even though it may be honestly made. If it is asked directly you have lost control and will likely lose.

It is not even the most important question for us. And it is that other question we really need to answer.

What is an elevator speech? This speech is the 30 seconds riding up the elevator with a decision maker to convince him/her to listen to your full pitch. It focuses on the Benefit that will be gained by the decision maker. The Benefit usually is of two types; 1) What is the Opportunity to be gained? 2) What is the Negative to be removed?

The real question needing a 30 second answer is:

What's in it for me? Why should I come to your lecture? Why should I listen to your ideas? Why should I read your Book? Why should I do different research? What's in it for me?

People use the mass gain cause against us because it works, it is unbelievably simple to use with so little effort, and we fall into it's trap willingly. It reminds me of something Ayn Rand said about ridicule being the most effective form of argument. It is an actual stumbling block that is important, I agree. I am not trying to minimize it, just trying to put it into a different perspective. However, if there is a major opportunity to be had, or a major problem to be avoided then the stumbling blocks miraculously disappear. And while it might not seem so, solving a problem is a much more significant motivator to change than is an opportunity.

Some examples: Crossing the US in the 18th and 19th century was an incredible hardship, with few maps and many problems. What overcame that speed bump? Gold discovered in California! Free land in Oklahoma! 30 second elevator speeches. No further explanations on how to get there given. The parties ignored the speed bump and went on to solve the problems themselves. Because there was a positive motivation. Only a relative few went (Innovators), but they built the infrastructure that dragged the rest behind (Early Majority).

If there were a major negative - say Yellowstone Caldera was about to blow , how long do you think it would take the President of the US to get new GPS results incorporating Vertical increase on his desk? About a day? Motivation.

6. What do we know about an ambush? I said we are being ambushed. Usually an ambush is used by a small band of guerillas against an over powering enemy because they have no other means of confronting that power. Here, the overwewhelming power is using the ambush technique on the guerillas. And it has been working for over 50 years. Sorry, but enter the ambush again and you will lose, again. I have a picture in my head of some heavy set guys sitting around a table with their feet up smoking cigars, and drinking whiskey. One asks, "Did it work again?" Another answers, smiling, "Yep, easier than last time!"

In politics each combatant knows exactly which questions they can't answer. So they come up with a counter answer that doesn't answer the question, or better yet they have a come back that traps and ridicules their opponent. I think their are potential analogies here.

In a law case, each side knows information - questions - they do not want asked, or hope never come up. The surprise negative question really throws them for a loop. If they know it is coming up then they position their case earlier to counter its effect. I think their are potential analogies here.

Organized science has been acting like the cigar smokers but they never met in a room and there is no conspiracy. That also means the overwhelming force is asleep and doesn't think they can be trapped. I don't have a perfect answer here, but I think part of the answer will be to trap them into being asked questions that do trap them. That make them look somewhat silly and really unprepared. That shows them up for what they are . . . assumers. An answer I seek is how can we lead them into an unexpected ambush?

7. So what would you do now? Given the reality of the situation ... given that I was to give a lecture . . . given that the ultimate opportunity or trap has not been developed. . . as Michael suggested, I would engage the audience and get them to talk. Get them to stumble over supposedly easy science that everyone knows. The others hear. I would prepare my lecture with multiple small hits answering the big question in the way I wanted to, to soften up the audience. So that I had somewhat already undercut the big question before it occurred. I would give them several useful alternatives that made sense. I would show the discrepancies in the standard thoughts. I would put doubt in their minds of their own and others infallibilty.

I would also utilize somehow two teaching techniques. In the military the phrase is "Tell em what you are going to tell em, Tell em what you want to tell em, Tell em what you told em." 3 times for repetition and memory (Not necessarily using the same words). Another technique I like is "I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand." An advancing pyramid of learning. Don't just talk in a monotone. Use excellent - simple to grasp visuals. Engage them so they have to come out of their deep sleep and pick something up. I would likely also have a "take with you" handout that can be more complicated - and looking professional, with other knowledge that brings them up to speed. I would also refer to other peoples work because that adds credence to the whole subject. I think I would also request that anyone more interested contact me by e-mail somehow implying that too serious an identity could be career threatening. This protects them but it may also help filter out the venturesome if it can be implied that therefore they are in a unique class.

We should next explore the technical approach to the question that can be somewhat convincing, easy to understand, and highlight some of the doubts of the standard theory.