I try to avoid using words like "you", "people", etc., when writing explanations because it keeps the explanation from feeling personal (unless it's supposed to be personal). I also try to leave out any subjective statements without supporting evidence. At least to me, it can be discouraging when reading about a subject and the author talks about how "simple" something is, or allows you to "quickly and easily do X", but I don't find it simple, and struggle to use it to do X. Let the reader decide if it's simple, don't tell them it's simple because it could make them feel stupid if they don't find it simple.
Yes! Do not use "just" or "basically" or other words that imply that you believe the concepts to be simple. "Basically, you just frobnosticate the dodad." kills me when I hear it in a meeting.
If you use complicated language, there are mainly three reasons:
- You don't understand what you are talking about
- You don't want to be understood
- You want to sound smart
I believe that an explanation should go straight to the core. If you truly understood something, it should be of no problem to explain it to your in-laws. (Ironically, this sentence is condescending..)
Overall, I don't think I ever thought that someone is condescending when they went to honestly explain something to me.
But it depends on the circumstances. Making a mistake and getting someone to explode "why don't you understand this simple thing?!" and then having them explain it to you is a miserable experience, for everyone involved.
Sometimes the condescending tone is based on your emotions about why people can’t understand something simple to you so you get a little pissed off while explaining, and would “bring out the sledge hammer” to make sure they know. It’s a lost of patience
Also, make sure the person you're talking to is interested in the explanation. People with lots of specialized knowledge tend to also have the habit of reflexively explaining things that nobody asked about.
I think one’s intent matters. If you feel superior, it is likely to come across regardless of style.
So, for me, it isn’t so much about not sounding condescending as much as it is to reflect on my motivation for explaining something: is my intent pure (share information, help, etc.) or impure (show off, diminish, etc.)
in my experience, most people cannot communicate their intent because after the translation from intent to words, it still has to be translated to words to ideas in their brain, and that filter has tons of baggage
Sometimes it seems necessary to use words like "obviously" or "of course", otherwise a setting-up part of my explanation will be rebutted as condescending with "but that's obvious", and the rest, my actual point that follows, will be ignored.
If I acknowledge that something is obvious to both of us, there's a chance that the listener won't think I'm being condescending and will instead give enough benefit of the doubt to keep listening until the conclusion.
I try to remember how it felt when I also didn't understand that concept, and talk about how it felt before and after making those connections.
Also, context and audience matters. If you write an explanatory blog post, the people who visit will mostly be searching for an explanation on that topic and won't feel offended when you assume they don't already know it. Give the same explanation at a conference, and you might get a very different reaction.
I worked for the Board of Elections as a poll worker every election since 2010. We repeat the same training material at least once a year. And if you only work 2 elections each year, then even the simple stuff bears repeating.
On the other hand working at the same accounting firm, doing the same things five days a week, 50 weeks a year for five years, lengthy explanations of simple issues are non-existent. If you’re not clear, then you ask.
Conveying information is a matter of figuring out what your audience currently understands, and what you want them to understand, and then charting a path from A to B. So the first thing I do is get a feel for where the audience is right now (by asking directly if possible, or making a best guess if not). Then I place myself in their shoes, and work backwards asking myself "why doesn't X makes sense yet?" to figure out which gaps need to be filled in.
To get more concrete: leveraging metaphors and bridging existing knowledge is a powerful explanation tool. If you're trying to explain X, and the audience already has a mental framework for Y which has some things in common with X, it can be much easier for both parties if you bridge from Y to X instead of constructing X from first principles.
Beyond just effectiveness of communication, this approach helps with the "condescension" factor too. One of the main things that makes someone feel stupid or belittled is when you explain something that they already know as if they didn't. So doing the up-front step of getting a good grasp on their starting point helps ensure that you're only telling them things they don't know already.
19 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 56.1 ms ] threadA complete but shallow explanation works to get early engagement.
I try to avoid analogies.
Each building-block topic in its own paragraph. From front to back. That is, start at the visible layer and work down.
Try to use neutral or group pronouns: we, it, "the system"
Reiterate feedback/question loop invite at the end.
If you use complicated language, there are mainly three reasons:
- You don't understand what you are talking about - You don't want to be understood - You want to sound smart
I believe that an explanation should go straight to the core. If you truly understood something, it should be of no problem to explain it to your in-laws. (Ironically, this sentence is condescending..)
Overall, I don't think I ever thought that someone is condescending when they went to honestly explain something to me.
But it depends on the circumstances. Making a mistake and getting someone to explode "why don't you understand this simple thing?!" and then having them explain it to you is a miserable experience, for everyone involved.
So, for me, it isn’t so much about not sounding condescending as much as it is to reflect on my motivation for explaining something: is my intent pure (share information, help, etc.) or impure (show off, diminish, etc.)
Sometimes it seems necessary to use words like "obviously" or "of course", otherwise a setting-up part of my explanation will be rebutted as condescending with "but that's obvious", and the rest, my actual point that follows, will be ignored.
If I acknowledge that something is obvious to both of us, there's a chance that the listener won't think I'm being condescending and will instead give enough benefit of the doubt to keep listening until the conclusion.
Also, context and audience matters. If you write an explanatory blog post, the people who visit will mostly be searching for an explanation on that topic and won't feel offended when you assume they don't already know it. Give the same explanation at a conference, and you might get a very different reaction.
Know who your audience. What do I mean by that?
I worked for the Board of Elections as a poll worker every election since 2010. We repeat the same training material at least once a year. And if you only work 2 elections each year, then even the simple stuff bears repeating.
On the other hand working at the same accounting firm, doing the same things five days a week, 50 weeks a year for five years, lengthy explanations of simple issues are non-existent. If you’re not clear, then you ask.
Right?
To get more concrete: leveraging metaphors and bridging existing knowledge is a powerful explanation tool. If you're trying to explain X, and the audience already has a mental framework for Y which has some things in common with X, it can be much easier for both parties if you bridge from Y to X instead of constructing X from first principles.
Beyond just effectiveness of communication, this approach helps with the "condescension" factor too. One of the main things that makes someone feel stupid or belittled is when you explain something that they already know as if they didn't. So doing the up-front step of getting a good grasp on their starting point helps ensure that you're only telling them things they don't know already.