In my 20s, being told "I don't know what you're saying" was a daily occurrence.
I thought I explained it well, but the other person's face would cloud over. Midway through, I'd realize, "Ah, this isn't getting across." But I was scared of my boss. Scared to stop. Scared of silence. So I'd add more details.
Then, it would become even less clear.
To put it mildly, it was hell.
What's worse is that when you have these experiences, you don't get better at explaining; you get worse.
What if it doesn't get across again? What if they get mad? What if they think I'm weird?
That panic fills up your brain's capacity even more, and your words get even more jammed.
That was exactly me in the past.
But then, I met people who were exceptionally good at explaining. I observed them closely to see what made them different. I read books. I practiced verbalization.
After about 10 years, I finally realized what it was.
To get straight to the point, the differences were these three:
- Write it down before speaking
- Decide the purpose of the explanation
- Reorder based on the purpose
People who are good at explaining aren't just smooth talkers.
They manipulate the information once before opening their mouths.
Preparation is necessary at first.
But as you repeat this, you'll eventually be able to do it naturally in your brain.
In other words, people who are exceptionally good at explaining have a different internal processing method before they speak.
I was able to overcome my complex about explaining by consciously working on this.
Today, I want to verbalize the entry point to that.
1. Write it down first
People who are bad at explaining try to do everything in their heads.
They try to organize, decide the order, think of phrasing, predict the listener's reaction, and prevent omissions all at once.
It's impossible.
It's like starting a meeting while having 30 tabs open in your brain.
Of course, you'll freeze.
So the first thing to do wasn't trying to speak well.
It was to get the thoughts out once.
What's important here isn't a "beautiful memo." Messy is fine. Bullet points are fine. A list of words is fine. Just get the data out of your head once.
The worse someone is at explaining, the more they try to show their internal warehouse as it is. They even try to show everything.
People who are good at explaining are different.
They take everything out onto the desk once, sort it, and then hand it over.
That's why it gets across.
It's the same with work consultations.
If you start talking only from inside your head:
"Um, first, as background..."
"No, before that, there's the history..."
"Actually, starting from the premise..."
It becomes a maze with three entrances.
But once you write it down, you can see.
What is the point? What is noise? What is important?
People who are good at explaining are just preparing before they start talking.
Even if they seem to speak fluently from the start, there is actually preparation of the information involved.
Even in cooking, if you throw everything into the pot without even using a knife, you'll have an accident.
Explaining is the same.
People who are exceptionally good at explaining get the materials out of their brains once before speaking.
I think this is the first difference.
2. Decide the purpose
The next important thing is to decide what the communication is for.
If this is missing, the explanation will quickly drift.
Even when talking about the same event, the necessary explanation changes completely depending on whether you want them to:
- Understand
- Make a judgment
- Empathize
- Take action
People who talk without deciding this end up serving a dish with every topping piled high.
Background, timeline, emotions, interpretations, concerns, foreshadowing—they put it all in.
That might seem kind, but it's just overloading. It causes accidents (lol).
For example, in a consultation with a boss, the purpose is quite clear.
Your boss doesn't need all 12 episodes of your internal documentary.
They need decision-making materials.
In this case, the premise, current situation, problem, conclusion, the basis for it, and what you want them to do are important.
Conversely, relationship consultations or conversations with a partner are different.
What's required here isn't necessarily a correct analysis.
The goal might be to have emotions accepted, like "I understand" or "That must have been unpleasant."
This mismatch happens often.
The man talks to "solve the problem," and the woman talks to "be empathized with."
Then the conversation doesn't mesh.
The other person is saying "it was hard," but this side is offering improvement plans like "then you should do this next time."
But at that moment, the conversation changes from problem-solving to accident handling.
That's why purpose matters.
For a boss, so they can decide. For a wife or partner, so they can talk comfortably.
Just by deciding this purpose, the words you choose, the amount of information, and the order will change.
Explaining is not about putting out everything you know.
It's the task of deciding what you want the other person to take home and choosing only the necessary parts.
People who are exceptionally good at explaining decide "what do I want to happen with this explanation" before speaking.
This was the second difference.
3. Reorder based on the purpose
Finally, reorder according to the purpose.
If you can do this, your explanations will improve instantly.
People who are bad at explaining skip 1 and 2 and try to reorder suddenly.
But with materials scattered and the purpose vague, you can't decide the order.
So what happens?
Because they're afraid of missing something, they start talking about everything in chronological order.
It's like, "First, I got a call from Person A, and then the matter of B overlapped, and I had been a little concerned about it from before..."
The speaker feels relieved because they've said everything.
But it's hard for the listener.
Because that is:
Just dumping the task of organizing the information onto the listener's brain.
This is quite a high load.
You could call it second-rate communication.
You're walking into the other person's working memory with your shoes on.
What's important isn't the order that's easy for you to speak.
It's delivering it in the order that's easy for the other person to understand.
Moreover, that order changes with the purpose.
For example, if consulting a boss, the order of premise, conclusion, problem, basis, and proposal might be better.
Because the boss wants to know quickly, "So, what do I need to judge?"
On the other hand, when talking to a wife or partner, it's different.
The top priority here isn't the beauty of logic, but the peace of the relationship.
So, first, accept the emotions. Empathize. Absorb the other person's story. Add your opinion only at the end if necessary. That's the order.
If you suddenly bring out logic here, it's over.
In a place where a peace treaty should be signed, a declaration of war begins.
People who are good at explaining can freely compress information according to the person and the situation.
They can go between abstract and concrete. They can make it long or short.
In other words,
They are people who can turn information into a ZIP file.
They don't hand over the data as it is.
They compress it into a format that can be opened on the other person's computer before handing it over.
That's why it gets across.
People who are exceptionally good at explaining don't just let information flow chronologically.
They reorder it according to the purpose and hand it over in a form the other person can open.
This is the third difference.
Summary
People who are bad at explaining don't lack vocabulary or expressive power.
In many cases, the problem lies further back.
They are mishandling the data in their brains.
It's not organized. The purpose isn't decided. There's no room to look around.
Ultimately, this is less a matter of sense and more a matter of how you use your brain's capacity.
Conversely, just by tidying this up, you'll have plenty of room in your explanations.
- Write it down first
- Then, decide the purpose
- Then, reorder according to the purpose
Just by doing these three, the congestion in your brain will decrease.
Then, you'll be able to see the other person. You'll be able to read the atmosphere of the conversation. As a result, your explanations will improve.
Explaining is not a display of knowledge or an appeal of information volume.
I think it's the technology of reproducing and sharing a scene in the other person's head without waste.
To put it more crudely, if you can properly download data from your brain's USB memory to the other person's brain's computer, you win.
What's needed then isn't increasing the amount of data.
It's handing it over in a form the other person can open.
In other words, compression.
People who are good at explaining are those who can freely compress information.
They are people who can change the size to suit the other person while going back and forth between abstract and concrete.
In the past, I couldn't do that.
But I changed a lot after learning how.
So, even if you think you're bad at explaining, it's not that you lack talent.
You just don't know how to handle the data in your brain yet. It's the same as not being able to open a file if you get the extension wrong.
I want you to be conscious of today's content and start by organizing the data in your own brain.
On this account, I verbalize daily under the theme of 1mm growth per day. Following is an encouragement.
Ⅹ Popular Articles
https://x.com/antoshia2n/status/2073689590452683044
https://x.com/antoshia2n/status/2073331909892166120
Reference Books + Recommended Books "The Pyramid Principle" by Barbara Minto "Speak in 1 Minute" by Yoichi Ito "First-class, Second-class, Third-class Explanations" by Minoru Kiryu
