In many contemporary workplaces, communication has become strangely heavy and light at the same time. Files grow larger. Slide decks swell with images, charts, animations, and branded templates. Video clips are produced with professional polish, soundtracks, and carefully staged messaging. Yet when one looks closely at what is actually being communicated, the substance often feels thin.
It is not unusual to encounter a presentation file measured in tens of megabytes that contains only a handful of real ideas. The rest is visual framing, layout, repetition, and decoration. The file is heavy. The thinking is light.
This contrast becomes especially clear when one imagines converting the same content into plain text. What might occupy several megabytes as a slide deck could easily fit into a few kilobytes as a written narrative. The difference is not only technical. It is qualitative. Text carries connective tissue. It holds explanations, transitions, causal chains, and hesitations. Slides often carry conclusions without paths.
Many professionals sense this intuitively. They leave meetings with the feeling that much was shown, but little was truly understood. The artifacts looked impressive, but the ideas did not linger. The memory fades quickly, not because attention was lacking, but because narrative was missing.
This is not simply a matter of preference or personality. It reflects a deeper shift in how modern organizations equate visibility with understanding. When something looks polished and official, it feels substantial. Yet substance, in a cognitive sense, is not a property of file size or visual density. It is a property of how well an idea is carried through time in language.
When Compression Becomes Substitution
Charts, bullets, and frameworks were not originally designed to replace thinking. They were meant to support it. A bullet point was meant to mark a place in a larger story. A chart was meant to summarize a pattern that had already been reasoned through. A framework was meant to organize reflections that had already been developed.
Over time, however, compression tools began to substitute for the narratives they were supposed to represent. The symbol came to stand in for the story. The marker came to replace the path.
This shift subtly changes what people believe understanding looks like. When a conclusion is presented without its development, it feels clean. It also feels finished. The listener is given no invitation to walk through the reasoning, to question assumptions, or to see where uncertainty remains. The result is a kind of intellectual closure that is efficient but fragile.
Compression is not neutral. When used as a primary mode of communication, it trains people to expect knowledge in static form. It discourages engagement with process. It encourages acceptance of outcomes without intimacy with how those outcomes came to be.
Over time, this reshapes organizational culture. People become fluent in presenting results, but less practiced in narrating thought. Meetings become spaces for showing rather than for reasoning. Alignment becomes something that is visually declared rather than intellectually earned.
The loss here is not just nuance. It is temporal depth. Thinking is an activity that unfolds. It requires sequence. It depends on carrying a question through multiple stages. When that temporal structure is removed, what remains may look like knowledge, but it no longer behaves like understanding.
The Illusion of Intelligence in Polished Artifacts
Nowhere is this more visible than in the polished outputs of consulting culture and institutional reporting. These materials often appear intelligent. They are full of professional language, confident recommendations, and well-designed visuals. Yet many readers feel an unspoken distance from full conviction.
This is not because the data is necessarily wrong. It is because the thinking is invisible.
The reports present themselves as if conclusions emerged cleanly, without struggle, without debate, without ambiguity. The narrative labor has been erased. What remains is surface certainty.
This creates a specific kind of shallowness. Not shallow in the sense of careless or unintelligent, but shallow in the sense of lacking visible depth of process. The reader cannot see what was excluded, what tradeoffs were considered, where confidence ends and estimation begins.
Authority is communicated through polish rather than through narrative integrity. The result is intelligence as performance.
Such artifacts often feel difficult to challenge precisely because they are not narrative. There is no thread to pull on. There is no story to enter. One is left with accepting or rejecting conclusions, rather than engaging with reasoning.
This is also why these materials can feel strangely interchangeable. Different firms, different branding, similar frameworks. The individuality of thought is flattened. The human mind behind the analysis is hidden.
Without narrative, intelligence loses its shadow. It becomes dimensionless. It occupies space, but not time.
Text as a Cognitive Habitat
Text is different. Not because it is more serious by nature, but because of how it carries thought.
Text unfolds. It requires sequence. A sentence follows a sentence. A paragraph develops an idea over time. Qualifications can be added. Counterexamples can be introduced. A reader can slow down, reread, pause, and reflect.
This temporal structure is not incidental. It mirrors how human thinking actually works. Thought is not a static object. It is a movement. It is a carrying forward of meaning across moments.
Inner speech is narrative. Memory is narrative. Reflection is narrative. Even when we reason abstractly, we do so by moving through chains of language in time.
This is why text is not merely a storage format. It is a cognitive habitat. It is a space in which thinking can live, grow, and be revisited.
Long-form writing makes this especially clear. An essay does not simply present an answer. It shows how an answer takes shape. It allows for development, correction, and deepening. It lets the reader accompany the thinker rather than merely observe the conclusion.
In this sense, text preserves dignity for both writer and reader. The writer is allowed to think in public. The reader is invited into the process of thought, not merely handed a result.
This is also why books generate so many downstream forms. A single text can become films, performances, discussions, and reinterpretations. The generative power comes from the narrative density of the original. Text carries more than content. It carries potential.
The AI Paradox
Generative AI has entered this landscape under the banner of efficiency. It is often marketed as a way to automate tasks, accelerate workflows, and increase output. In many cases, this framing leads organizations to use AI to produce more slides, more summaries, more compressed artifacts.
Yet this is not what surprised people when they first encountered conversational AI.
What surprised them was continuity. Memory. Context. The sense that the system was participating in a sustained exchange of meaning.
People did not feel impressed primarily because the system was fast. They felt impressed because it felt responsive in a narrative sense. It could carry a conversation. It could remember what had been said. It could develop an idea over multiple turns.
In other words, the true innovation was not automation. It was narrative co-presence.
AI, at its core, is a system for generating and managing extended text-based interaction. It operates in the same medium as essays, letters, inner speech, and reflective dialogue. Its power lies in sustaining meaning across time, not merely in producing outputs.
The paradox is that modern organizations often drag AI back into the shallow uses they already know. They ask it to produce bullets. They ask it to summarize into fragments. They ask it to fit into the compression culture.
In doing so, they miss the deeper possibility.
Used well, AI is not a shortcut around thinking. It is a medium that can support thinking. It can hold context. It can act as a dialog partner. It can make sustained reflection more accessible.
This is not about replacing human thought. It is about restoring narrative as a central mode of cognitive work, now with technological support.
Long-Form as a Form of Resistance
In this environment, choosing to write long-form narrative is not merely a stylistic preference. It is an epistemic stance.
To write in extended text is to insist that thought deserves time. It is to refuse the idea that understanding must be compressed into symbols before it is allowed to exist. It is to make one’s thinking visible, including its development and uncertainty.
This kind of writing is slower. It does not always fit neatly into organizational rhythms. It may not look as efficient. Yet it carries a different kind of integrity.
Over time, readers who encounter sustained narrative begin to trust not because every conclusion is perfect, but because they can see how the mind works. They can see continuity. They can see growth. They can see a human voice.
This is very different from credibility based on polish or branding. It is credibility based on presence over time.
In a culture that rewards display, long-form writing becomes quietly countercultural. It affirms that intelligence is not a performance, but a practice. It affirms that thinking is not a slide, but a walk.
A Coming Reformation of Knowledge Work
If there is a broader shift on the horizon, it may not come from automation alone. It may come from a revaluation of what real knowledge work looks like.
When narrative returns to the center, many pseudo practices will become visible for what they are. Not because machines take them over, but because their lack of cognitive substance becomes harder to hide.
AI, in this sense, may act less as a replacement and more as a mirror. It will reveal how shallow many communication rituals have become. It will also show how powerful sustained narrative can be when supported.
The future of knowledge work may not be more dashboards, more decks, and more polished artifacts. It may be more conversations, more long-form reasoning, and more visible thinking.
This would not be a return to the past. It would be a recovery of something fundamental.
Thinking happens in time. Understanding lives in stories. Wisdom grows in language that unfolds, not because it is efficient in bytes, but because it is faithful to how human minds actually live, remember, and think.
In a world saturated with images and symbols, the quiet persistence of text may turn out to be not a limitation, but a strength.
Image: StockCake
Tom’s Blog 