我也有话要说（三十四）控制自己的讲话范围

I Have Something to Say Too (34): Control the Scope of Your Talk

> By Li Xiaolai · 2010-08-16 · [Original (web archive)](https://web.archive.org/web/20111113124059/http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/9915.html) (Chinese)
> Our translation from the Chinese original.

Probably everyone envies those who can "quote widely from all sources" on stage. But as a novice, when speaking on stage you must be careful about the range your topic touches.

Mastering a topic takes a lot of time-experience [Translator's note: the original writes 时间经历 ("time and experience"); 时间精力 ("time and energy") may be meant; translated as written] and accumulation; it's not something you can get done by fiddling with it a bit using petty cleverness. Even for a very small topic, there are countless challenges that the speaker may be unable to think of in advance [Translator's note: the original writes 实现, literally "realize, achieve"; 事先 ("in advance") is meant; translated by the intended sense]; some are questions, some are traps, and these require long periods of thinking, observing, accumulating and ruminating to understand fully.

For example, on stage you say "people should take others' feelings into account"—originally a view that anyone can understand and accept. But after giving several examples, you mention in passing that "setting off firecrackers is a typical behavior that shows no regard at all for others' feelings." In your view this is an "obvious" fact, and moreover you haven't actually said your fundamental idea completely—what you actually wish is "to ban private setting-off of fireworks and firecrackers."

But even if you only lightly mention "setting off firecrackers is a typical behavior that shows no regard at all for others' feelings," it may draw a lot of feedback you never expected at all (of course, more of it "opposition"). I once wrote a piece, "[Should Setting Off Fireworks and Firecrackers Be Banned](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/5542.html)"; interested readers can read that article carefully, and in particular should carefully read every comment (very, very many).

Don't think that because in daily life you can leave the friends around you speechless, it means you can't be refuted. Nobody has more than a few articulate people around them, let alone people good at thinking. Being able to master some topic within the scope of your life (of course, this is more likely just an illusion) doesn't mean you can do the same in a larger scope—you, standing on stage, will face several times or even dozens of times the number of people your life's scope can reach. They may come from strata you can't fully predict in advance, their age groups differ, and the differences in knowledge among them may be infinitely large... Who knows which of them may at any moment raise a challenge that catches you off guard.

And at other times, although your view and conclusion are right, because the challenges raised by the audience really are beyond your imagination and catch you off guard, the result is extreme embarrassment. Many people, before they run into embarrassment, firmly believe they won't run into embarrassment, until that embarrassment appears and leaves them covered in dust and ashes before they're willing to give up.

As the saying goes, he who talks much is bound to err. This saying doesn't only mean "if you talk too much, you're bound to make mistakes." A more likely interpretation is "when what you say is heard by very, very many people, your words are bound to invite all kinds of misunderstanding; the more people hear your words, the more misunderstanding they invite; you may even offend people because of it; the more people hear your words, the more people you offend...".

It's quite possible you'll invite misunderstanding or even hatred completely unintentionally. Yesterday a "fresh and classic example" happened. I posted [a remark](http://twitter.com/xiaolai/status/21153890044) on Twitter:

> Been using a mac for half a year and never needed to "reinstall the system"... what a relief this is for users who've switched over from windows!

After posting it I went off to read; when I came back two hours later, I found that what it had drawn was almost entirely voices of opposition—including no shortage of words like "dumbfuck" and "you're just pretending, you jerk" [Translator's note: 傻逼 (shabi) and 你丫就装吧 are vulgar insults].

I was taken aback for a moment and re-examined the tweet I'd posted, and only then discovered I'd left out the three characters "我这个" ("me, as a"); the meaning I originally wanted to express was this:

> Been using a mac for half a year and never needed to "reinstall the system"... what a relief this is for **me, as a** user who's switched over from windows!

Think about it and it's clear: on Twitter I have nearly twenty thousand Followers; a sentence goes out and may instantly be seen by at least a tenth of them (equivalent to two thousand people); a total of twenty-some opposing replies is actually not many at all (a proportion of one in a thousand to one in a hundred, that's all). However, these voices definitely exist.

Of course, as a speaker, being able to hear this kind of voice is in a certain sense a great blessing, even if it's foul language. Those who are rude can't hurt the speaker, but they can stimulate a calm speaker to consider many questions: what kinds of topics are more likely to draw this kind of reaction? Why do they react this way? Did I say something wrong somewhere? Or could I change my wording a bit to express my view better? If their challenges are completely unreasonable, how should I respond? If their challenges are somewhat reasonable, how should I correct myself?

Copyright: © LookMinds. Our own edited text and translation, not a substitute for the original; rights in the original belong to the author and the platform. Please see the original link.