There were several distinct differences between the two times I engaged with Geary’s TED talk. First off I felt watching the TED talk to be more enjoyable and digestible. This is due largely to its nature as a video and audio presentation. Geary uses comedy and visual aids troughout his talk that serve to enhance his message and make it more engaging. Much of this is lost when you can’t physically hear his voice and the accompanying laughter from the crowd. The visual aids he uses work well to support his points and while he does describe what he shows he usually goes into sparse detail about. One of these moments stood out during my annotations when he is talking about synesthesia and the bouba/kiki test. Geary engages the audience by asking them a question about the visual aid but during the annotations, you cannot see this aid effectively taking you out of the audience.
Perhaps it’s because of my lack of experience annotating or the limitations of the format due to the talks intended medium but I do not feel I gleaned anything new or significant from my annotations. Maybe during subsequent readings and deeper annotations where I am less distracted, I could connect deeper with the piece but as for my personal experience during this “conversation”, I do not feel I learned anything I had not before.
I’m sorry to hear that your second experience with the text offered you little additional insight. Consider taking my advice below as you annotate your next text. I’m wondering if you will see a difference.
Annotation: Challenge yourself to abandon your highlighter during your next read. Instead, write those thoughts/reactions in the margins. Try to ask questions. I also challenge you to write down any connections you can make between yourself, your world, and the text. I promise that this effort will save you a lot of time later when you are looking for that perfect quote while writing your paper.