We like to believe that language is the bridge between minds. That with the right words, clarity will follow. That if we just try hard enough to explain ourselves, understanding will take place. But many of us have learned, quietly and painfully, that this is not always the case.
You sit across from someone and explain your thoughts with care. They nod. They speak. But something doesn’t land. You sense a gap. You try again, only to feel more lost. Misunderstandings pile up, and you wonder why words, our most trusted tools, are failing you.
This isn’t just about difficult conversations. Even in routine discussions, something feels off. You read a message and sense a different tone than intended. You speak plainly, but they take it another way. The illusion of clarity begins to crumble. Language, so familiar, becomes unreliable.
We might think we’re just bad at communicating. But maybe the problem runs deeper. Maybe we are overestimating what language can actually do, especially in a world that values speed, simplicity, and results over reflection and nuance.
Two Myths That Mislead Us
Part of the issue may be the habits we’ve inherited; beliefs about how to communicate well that don’t always serve us. Two in particular stand out. The first is the belief that we should always present the conclusion first. The second is the idea that shorter is better.
The first belief likely comes from journalism and executive culture. Lead with the bottom line. Say what matters most right away. This is supposed to save time, reduce confusion, and get to the point. But in everyday human communication, it rarely works that cleanly. We’re not readers skimming headlines. We’re people with emotions, assumptions, and different frames of reference. When a conclusion is dropped on us without the story behind it, we often feel startled or resistant. We want to know how the speaker got there. We want to walk the path, not just see the destination.
The second belief builds on the first. Make it short. Use fewer words. Trim the fat. But language is already a lean system. It compresses complex realities into symbols and sounds. If we insist on even more brevity, we risk cutting away the very context that makes understanding possible. What’s left is a skeleton of meaning that each person fills in with their own assumptions. That’s how two people can read the same sentence and walk away with opposite interpretations, each certain they got it right.
Together, these habits increase the risk of conflict. When we speak in conclusions and compress too much, we expect others to infer our intent without enough guidance. And when they don’t, we blame them for not listening, not realizing we’ve handed them fragments instead of a story.
Why Concise Feels Right (But Often Isn’t)
And yet, this is where it gets tricky. There’s a reason why giving the conclusion first feels right. There’s a reason we crave short, simple explanations. It isn’t just laziness. It’s how our minds work.
In cognitive psychology, there’s the concept of schema. A schema is a mental structure that helps us interpret new information. When someone gives us a conclusion first, say, “This project failed because of X,” our brains immediately try to match that statement with existing patterns. If we already have a similar frame in mind, everything that follows becomes easier to digest. The conclusion activates a ready-made slot in our mental filing cabinet.
This is why short summaries and headlines feel satisfying. They allow us to classify information quickly. They give us a sense of control over complexity. In a world flooded with data, schema help us stay afloat.
But there’s a hidden cost. If the speaker and listener are working with different schemas, the conclusion-first approach backfires. One person thinks they’re being clear, while the other is filing the information in the wrong drawer. The result is false clarity; a mismatch that isn’t discovered until much later, often when it’s too late.
Another concept at play is cognitive economy. Our brains naturally conserve energy. We gravitate toward shortcuts. Language that is short and structured feels efficient. It tricks us into believing we’ve understood, even when we haven’t.
In linguistic philosophy, thinkers like Grice emphasized conversational principles like being relevant, clear, and informative, but not more than necessary. These ideas shaped how we judge good communication. But they also assume a shared context, which is often missing. Without that shared base, clarity becomes fragile.
Philosophical hermeneutics offers another view. Thinkers like Gadamer believed that understanding is not something we extract from words. It’s something that happens in the unfolding, through the back-and-forth of interpretation. True comprehension doesn’t arrive pre-packaged. It emerges.
Add to this the fact that different cultures treat communication differently. Some prefer directness and quick conclusions. Others value subtlety, silence, and building context slowly. The rule of “just say it” isn’t universal. It’s cultural.
So yes, we like concise. It feels clean. But understanding is often messy. And what feels efficient may, in the long run, prove deeply inefficient.
The Executive Summary Paradox
Nowhere is this tension more visible than in the corporate world. Communication here is compressed not just by style, but by structure. It is expected to be efficient, decisive, and often one-directional. This creates a paradox.
Your boss doesn’t have time. They don’t attend most of the meetings. They skim the executive summary. Yet they are the ones who give feedback, steer the project, and decide the course. You’ve lived the complexity of the work. They’ve seen the headline.
You try to be concise, knowing that’s what’s expected. But in doing so, you remove the very context that shaped your thinking. When your boss offers suggestions, they may sound off. You want to explain, but time is tight. The power dynamic makes it awkward to push back. So you smile and adjust, even when the advice feels detached from the actual problem.
Sometimes they offer a so-called bigger picture. But more often than not, it’s a picture you already know. It doesn’t help clarify the present; it hovers above it. The more they speak in generalities, the more isolated your specific efforts feel. The irony is painful: those furthest from the details are shaping the decisions.
This is not a matter of incompetence or malice. It’s structural. When decision-makers lack time, and workers lack voice, communication becomes a guessing game. People don’t share the same schema. Yet they are forced to pretend they do.
The workplace rewards speed. But understanding can’t always be rushed. And in this system, both sides lose something, authentic feedback, mutual trust, and the space for real thought.
The Unfinished Task of Understanding
Language is miraculous. But it is not magic. It doesn’t transfer meaning from one mind to another like a file download. It sketches. It hints. It invites. For understanding to happen, both sides must want to see what the other sees.
When we reduce language too much, we remove the space where meaning grows. We speak in fragments and hope for wholeness. We answer before we listen. We shorten to save time, only to spend more time cleaning up the confusion that follows.
There’s no easy fix. We live in a world that runs on speed, summaries, and short attention spans. But perhaps we can begin by remembering what language actually is; a living bridge between minds, not a lifeless courier of conclusions.
Maybe what we need isn’t just better summaries, but better patience. Not just clearer outcomes, but clearer paths. Not just results, but relationships built through shared context.
Understanding is not a checkbox. It is a process. And perhaps our most human conversations are the ones where we allow that process to unfold.
Image by sharkolot
Tom’s Blog 