To Er is Human

[Dingfod]

I did not err, researchers have found that "uhm", "ah" and "er" (http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1520512007) breaks in speech are not a distraction, they aid in understanding. The study showed that such "disfluences" force the brain to tune in, to pay more attention, therefore increasing understanding what the speaker is saying.

The study had volunteers listen to series of sentences, some of which had the "uhs" and "ers". After an hour listening to sentences, the volunteers remembered more of what they heard with the breaks in speech, scoring 62% recall compared with 55% without. The tests have been replicated twice.

I think speech with too many of these disfluences is as bad or worse than having none, too many and I tend to tune out the speaker. I'm not sure about when there is none, I think it may make some difference with me, but not that much. Is that the case with any of you? It's like hearing, like, you know, someone who, you know, talks about something, you know, like trying to communicate, you know.

[fragment]

Uhh, yeah. Um, I don't know about that. Err... I think I tend to put those in when talking so as to collect my own, um, thoughts, not to, errr, help anyone else.

[erimir]

I guess it lets them collect their thoughts too, eh?

[Dingfod]

Uhm ... yeah.

[Sock Puppet]

I have no idea whether "ers" and "ums" in moderation help me understand a speaker, but I know that if it's excessive, I tend to make (perhaps unfair) judgments about the speaker's knowledge of what the hell he's talking about. That can't be good for uptake.

[Ensign Steve]

When it becomes excessive (one or more per sentence), I start counting them. That really detracts from the message.

[godfry n. glad]

In Toastmasters, they work to eliminate those "crutches" from one's speaking. They are considered "crutches" because, according to Tm, they are there because the speaker is not quite sure what they are going to say and it kills sufficient amount of time to allow the mind to search for a word, turn of phrase, or exact meaning. Lots of such insertions in public presentations are considered to be indications of being unprepared and not adequately knowing your subject before launching into the speech.

[Dingfod]

Researchers say Toastmasters are wrong.

[But]

They should have tested how great a percentage of ers and uhms were recalled.

[godfry n. glad]

Researchers say Toastmasters are wrong.

How do you figure?

It's my understanding that what the researchers are saying is that listeners remember the content around when the speaker uses the "ah", or "um", or whatever. If the stumbling speaker does not wish to emphasize those aspects they stumble over, then his/her message is not being adequately conveyed, as the audience may be remembering tangential or unimportant aspects because the speaker stumbled through them. The audience may remember those things better, but if that was not what the speaker wanted the audience to carry away from the session, then it was not particularly useful.

Am I missing something?

Besides, they're Scottish academics, for crêpes sake...every "r" in every word is "er". Or, more accurately, "errrrrrrrrrr".

[Dingfod]

That's not what I got out of the article about the study, but then again, there wasn't that big of a difference anyway, 55% retention without the uhms and ers vs 62% with; whoopie-doo.