I had the honour of presenting at an ISC2 London Chapter meeting a little while ago, and my chosen subject was ‘Mobile: Changing the Face of Identity Management (IM)’. What I thought was going to be half an hour of me espousing my ideas (or ranting, depending on your point of view), turned into the most lively debate I have ever had in front of an audience.
Initially I wondered if my 10 slides was going to be enough (although I never actually read to the material), but I didn’t even make it past slide 7. By the time I was on slide 5 the questions started, then the dissenters chimed in, and by the time I reached slide 7 the presentation was forgotten. My 30 minute slot was over before I knew it, and it was clear a lot of people had a LOT more to say, which they did over beers afterwards.
The culmination of this discussion was when I heard the following; “I don’t agree with ANYTHING you are saying!”, which for a lot of people (especially ‘expert’ presenters) can be the cause of anger, considered a challenge, or can even cause outright panic. To me it should only ever be the cause of curiosity; WHY am I wrong? I certainly don’t think I am, and probably still won’t after I hear your explanation. I’m curious nonetheless.
But what I will do is hear what you have to say as objectively as I can, and respond as neutrally and I can. Usually without much success mind you, we are all very attached to our opinions, but I will at least try.
Presenters are supposed to be experts in their fields, otherwise why the Hell are they on stage, but that does not [necessarily] make them right, especially when the subject is focused on future-state concepts as opposed to subjects which are long established. I have no idea where Identity Management will be in 5 years, but I have a rough idea. Also, my ideas are also right for ME, but I am decidedly on one side of the privacy challenges that surround the field of identity and privacy like a miasma.
I guess in the end you must decide for yourself if you want to be a lecturer, where your subject is not really up for debate (like when I train groups in PCI for example) or a presenter, when your ideas must be open to not only comment, but potentially ridicule. I have to admit, it makes presenting is a lot more fun, and if I only have to produce 7 slides to get an audience engaged, then I have a lot less work to do! 🙂
The lessons I learned in that presentation will stand me in very good stead for the next one, and who knows, maybe I’ll even finish all 10 slides.
[If you liked this article, please share! Want more like it, subscribe!]

Hey, sounds like a win-win – you get paid to make a presentation, but instead get to debate with other people in the field and either successfully defend your established knowledge, or correct any outdated or inaccurate info (the sort of thing you would elsewhere have to pay for 😀 )