The 'you know' is a filler we use for traffic regulation. We use these fillers subconsciously to take micro breaks while speaking, to verbalize our thoughts and to indicate to the listener not to interrupt as we aren't done speaking yet.
Polish of delivery is just a nice to have feature, substance matters most of all.
I've attended public speaking courses, which tend to emphasize polish, but seeing some of the most effective speakers using fillers like 'ums' 'ahs' and 'you know' just goes to show polish doesn't matter all that much. Reality supersedes theory.
As a counterpoint, if a talk lacks the natural "kind of"s and "ummm"s, my charlatan radar turns on--people who are too polished often get megaphones because of their polish rather than substance. Most of the smartest people I know lean on these verbal crutches and I don't fault them one bit for it.
I think that's pushing it a bit too far. Many people whose job is speaking can say very interesting things without any crutches like those (writers, professors, etc.). I do not "fault" them either (except for poor delivery that could be fixed fairly easily), but I'd just rather see their thoughts in writing.
It is possible for someone to put deliberate practice and care into learning basic public speaking skills without being a charlatan.
> Most of the smartest people I know lean on these verbal crutches
Yes, “most” smart people never spend much deliberate effort on improving verbal communication. (Just like “most” smart people never put deliberate effort into their cooking skills, or their running form, or their mental calculation speed, or their tree climbing, or their drawing, ....)
There are a lot of skills people might choose to work on, and only so much time, and if you pick any particular one (unless it is something unavoidable for most adults like eating or reading), you will find most people to be unpracticed at it.
But that doesn’t mean intellectuals shouldn’t work on verbal communication skills.
The interesting part is not in the reading of the words but the understanding of the concepts.
I listened to this podcast and rarely read transcripts. When listening to podcasts, at least for me, the "umms" and "awws" allow me time to think about what is being said.
Sure, and things like "you know", "umm" etc. are not concepts. They're just noise. They could be edited out of the transcript and no value would be lost.
I did read the article when it came out. The interesting part here is the way the presenter might challenge some of the contents of the article.
