Speaking in Specifics

This guide provides a method for descending the "abstraction ladder" to prevent misunderstandings before they become conflicts. The core practice is to express our actual needs, desires, and observations clearly, rather than packaging them in vague, universal judgments.

1. How high are you... on the abstraction ladder?

Most unnecessary conflicts arise from speaking at a high level of abstraction, which creates ambiguity. Ground-level expression, rooted in specific experience, fosters understanding even amid disagreement.

Top Level (Abstract): "That's absurd. They don't understand anything."

Ground Level (Specific): "When they claimed X, it contradicted my direct experience with Y, which leads me to believe their model is incomplete."

Questions to determine if it's a high level abstraction:

• Could this label point to many different things?
• How vague or ambiguous is this?
• How much is this concept influenced by subjective interpretation?

2. Is it your experience or universal truth?

We naturally generalize from our experiences, but presenting these generalizations as objective facts creates immediate conflict by invalidating the different experiences of others. The key is to own our experience as our experience.

Universal Claim: "Doctors don't listen."

Specific Experience: "During my last appointment, my doctor interrupted me and didn't address my primary concern."

Reality check:

• What evidence would falsify this claim?
• How many cases did your study analyze?

3. What's motivating you?

Behind every abstract complaint is a specific, motivating driver: a need, desire, preference, standard, belief, or priority. Identifying this driver allows us to express ourselves more clearly and transform a vague attack into a concrete, discussable issue.

Abstract Attack: "I can't live with a slob."

Specific Motivation: "My standard for cleaning isn't being met, and that's creating significant stress for me."

4. How can your language create possibility?

Prescriptive or absolute language ("You must," "The fact is...") triggers psychological reactance, causing others to resist instinctively. Tentative language defuses this by creating space for others to consider a perspective without feeling cornered.

Certainty (Closes Possibility): "This proves my point."

Tentative (Opens Possibility): "My experience suggests this might be the case."

5. How can curiosity build bridges?

When faced with an abstract claim, the instinct is to counter with another abstraction, creating a "war of abstractions." A more productive approach is to use curiosity to guide the conversation down the ladder to specifics.

• "What specific impacts of that policy concern you the most?"
• "Can you give me an example of when this caused a problem?"
• "What would need to be different for this to work for you?"

Curiosity builds bridges, where certainty builds walls.

For more, see: Speaking in Specifics: Examples