# Military Officer Condemns Power Point! **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 27, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547 "2010-04-27T18:59:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/1 "2010-04-27T18:59:13Z")
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html?no\_interstitial](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html?no_interstitial) I have to admit – that chart is actually _easy_ to comprehend compared to the example printed over 20 years ago in the book **the Experts Speak**. That was a Military View-Graph that consisted on acronym-filled boxes connected by a spaghetti of lines. If anything, this one – with actual words, not to mention color-coding, is a breath of clarity by comparison. > **[The Experts Speak : The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation:...](https://www.amazon.com/Experts-Speak-Definitive-Authoritative-Misinformation/dp/0679778063)** > > The Experts Speak : The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation \[Christopher Cerf, Victor S. Navasky\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. The Experts Speak : The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/2 "2010-04-28T01:24:34Z")
This is my favorite part of that article: > [@](#): > > General McMaster said in a telephone interview afterward. “Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.” Heh. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/3 "2010-04-28T01:29:39Z")
Professionals create presentations and wow their audience. Amateurs use Powerpoint and bow wow their audience. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/4 "2010-04-28T02:44:21Z")
Even if slides wow, they don’t usually convey much information. That medium does not lend itself well to subtlety. It also promotes the use of sentence fragments and make it easy to not provide key information. The example given in the article is classic: > [@](#): > > “accelerate the introduction of new weapons,” for instance, does not actually say who should do so. I recall a study about a decade ago that demonstrated that pre-made powerpoint slides did not fair well against an overhead projector. Speakers who used the projector to write down key points during a lecture were able to convey more information which was retained better than the speakers using slides. I think the key to why Powerpoint is so popular is laziness. My supervisors often wanted bullet points on slides they could pass on directly to upper management. It makes sense that upper management does not have the time to process all the detail of everything that is going on, but middle and especially lower management should have a deeper understanding, if for no other reason that they should be more aware of what business priorities are than the techs who do the nitty gritty configuration and support. All too often all they want is the three bullet summary. ---
**Author:** ![flyboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@flyboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flyboy)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/5 "2010-04-28T04:24:22Z")
> [@lee](#): > > Even if slides wow, they don’t usually convey much information. That medium does not lend itself well to subtlety. It also promotes the use of sentence fragments and make it easy to not provide key information. The example given in the article is classic: > > I recall a study about a decade ago that demonstrated that pre-made powerpoint slides did not fair well against an overhead projector. Speakers who used the projector to write down key points during a lecture were able to convey more information which was retained better than the speakers using slides. > > I think the key to why Powerpoint is so popular is laziness. My supervisors often wanted bullet points on slides they could pass on directly to upper management. It makes sense that upper management does not have the time to process all the detail of everything that is going on, but middle and especially lower management should have a deeper understanding, if for no other reason that they should be more aware of what business priorities are than the techs who do the nitty gritty configuration and support. All too often all they want is the three bullet summary. The problem with that quote from the article is that it assumes the author had no idea who he was briefing. I could easily use that bullet in briefing a JTF commander, and there would be no doubt as to who would need to take that for action. In that context, it would not be vague. The problem with the article is that it bashes ppt, but doesn’t offer a viable solution or alternative. Do we get rid of it, and go back to overheads? White boards? Long, windy point papers with abstracts? Powerpoint does dumb things down, but the good part is that, if done properly, it’s concise and transferable, with little risk of concepts getting lost or twisted afterwards. And if a superior up the chain wants more meat, he can always grab the author and get the details. Do we use it too much? Probably. Is there a better way to do business? Not that I’ve seen. ---
**Author:** ![Runs\_With\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/278dde/32.png) [@Runs\_With\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Runs_With_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/6 "2010-04-30T01:50:04Z")
I loved that article. And I _hate_ Powerpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/7 "2010-04-30T03:14:54Z")
> [@flyboy](#): > > The problem with the article is that it bashes ppt, but doesn’t offer a viable solution or alternative. Do we get rid of it, and go back to overheads? White boards? Long, windy point papers with abstracts? According to another article (the essay [Dumb-Dumb Bullets](http://www.afji.com/2009/07/4061641)), what they used to do is write a two page summary of the subject which the other guys could read at their leisure and had time to think about, before they went to the meeting to discuss it and make a decision. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/8 "2010-04-30T12:26:09Z")
> [@lee](#): > > I think the key to why Powerpoint is so popular is laziness. My supervisors often wanted bullet points on slides they could pass on directly to upper management. It makes sense that upper management does not have the time to process all the detail of everything that is going on, but middle and especially lower management should have a deeper understanding, if for no other reason that they should be more aware of what business priorities are than the techs who do the nitty gritty configuration and support. All too often all they want is the three bullet summary. Lucky you. I write 40 page Powerpoints supported by several whitepapers for my management to make them happy. Then I distill that down into 12 page Powerpoints for their bosses. Those distill down into four pages for their bosses. We tend to be guilty of overanalyzing. Powerpoint has its uses - its far too overused for things that should really be written in complete sentences. (Sounds like someone discovered Tufte). ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/9 "2010-04-30T13:21:45Z")
> [@lee](#): > > Even if slides wow, they don’t usually convey much information. That medium does not lend itself well to subtlety. It also promotes the use of sentence fragments and make it easy to not provide key information. That’s complete bullshit. Consider the evidence: \*Can be subtle \*No sentence fragments \*Talk about key information \*Next slide ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/10 "2010-04-30T14:36:11Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > That’s complete bullshit. Consider the evidence: > > \*Can be subtle > > \*No sentence fragments > > \*Talk about key information > > \*Next slide I think “No sentence fragments.” should be a mandatory part of all collections of Fumblerules. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/11 "2010-04-30T18:23:42Z")
PowerPoint is a tool; nothing more. If folks don’t know how to use it, they come across like a tool - but that’s not PowerPoint’s fault. Yes it is, as they say, a fairly unforgiving medium. But don’t hate the tool, hate the writer. Clarity in communications is frustratingly low in all forms of, in my case, business communications (vs. military, etc.). Email, memos, PPT, whatever - I spend a lot of my time coaching my direct reports and others in proper, structured communication across many media. An interesting question would be: how much training have the PPT’ers you all rail against had in Structured Communication? Management Consulting may have a whole lot going against it, but the training one receives in Boot Camp and over the first 5 years of your career in Structured Communication, Structured Problem Solving and Project Management is basically a post-grad degree in Business Management and Execution. An essential difference-maker. I use each pretty much every day as one of the leaders of my company. ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/12 "2010-04-30T21:15:25Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Lucky you. I write 40 page Powerpoints supported by several whitepapers for my management to make them happy. Then I distill that down into 12 page Powerpoints for their bosses. Those distill down into four pages for their bosses. We tend to be guilty of overanalyzing. > > Powerpoint has its uses - its far too overused for things that should really be written in complete sentences. > > (Sounds like someone discovered Tufte). I don’t see how that is lucky. Personally, I would much rather do all that. At least then someone other than me has seen all 40 pages worth of information. My supervisor would not read anything that had paragraphs and did not want anything other than the shortest executive summary to be written at all. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/13 "2010-04-30T21:35:33Z")
Professional management consultant here. The limitations of Powerpoint is that it can only convey information as intelligent as you put into it. I get what the article is saying. There is definitely a tendency to use Powerpoint to lend excessive credibility to questionable conclusions. In fact, the Partner I report to in my firm frequently asks me to tear apart the questionable conclusions his people put in slides that are supposed to go out to clients. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/14 "2010-05-01T00:02:05Z")
[The Gettysburg PowerPoint](http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/) ---
**Author:** ![flyboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@flyboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flyboy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/15 "2010-05-01T00:15:10Z")
That is f\*cking hilarious. I may have to bookmark that. ---
**Author:** ![LeeshaJoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LeeshaJoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LeeshaJoy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/16 "2010-05-01T00:53:58Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The limitations of Powerpoint is that it can only convey information as intelligent as you put into it. Isn’t that true of _any_ communications medium? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/17 "2010-05-01T02:01:25Z")
From OP’s cite, here’s a quote that seemed surprising: > [@](#): > > Last year when a military Web site, Company Command, asked an Army platoon leader in Iraq, Lt. Sam Nuxoll, how he spent most of his time, he responded, “Making PowerPoint slides.” When pressed, he said he was serious. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/18 "2010-05-01T04:36:04Z")
> [@lee](#): > > I don’t see how that is lucky. Personally, I would much rather do all that. At least then someone other than me has seen all 40 pages worth of information. My supervisor would not read anything that had paragraphs and did not want anything other than the shortest executive summary to be written at all. It often means we don’t do any work, we just analyze and refine our analysis. It isn’t exactly a value add. Sometimes four slides of Powerpoint bullets and “trust me to do my own damn job” would enable you to actually get things accomplished with a reasonable amount of headcount. Instead of having your headcount write 40 page whitepapers. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/19 "2010-05-01T05:10:14Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > It often means we don’t do any work, we just analyze and refine our analysis. It isn’t exactly a value add. Sometimes four slides of Powerpoint bullets and “trust me to do my own damn job” would enable you to actually get things accomplished with a reasonable amount of headcount. Instead of having your headcount write 40 page whitepapers. Exactly. PowerPoint is merely a vehicle for revealing that your management structure is fucked up. That’s not PowerPoint’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![Crown\_Prince\_of\_Irony](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed655f/32.png) [@Crown\_Prince\_of\_Irony](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crown_Prince_of_Irony)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547/20 "2010-05-01T05:30:23Z")
Unfortunately in my company, PowerPoint has become the defacto standard for communicating complex ideas. Instead of having a call with key stakeholders to discuss and gain support for a project proposal, often someone will ask me to create a slide deck so they can “socialize it”. Urrggh. So let me get this straight - I’m going to spend 2 hours distilling a complex idea into 10 slides, and hope that everyone somehow gets it, rather than get everyone on the phone for an hour or so, and just, uh, I don’t know. . . **TALK ABOUT IT**? PowerPoint is designed to provide a backdrop in a 10±foot interface environment, to accompany a knowledgeable and engaging speaker. It’s a presentation aid, not a communication medium like some would like to believe. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-officer-condemns-power-point/537547.md?page=2)