One day I will find the right words, and they will be simple.

This quote is by American novelist and poet Jack Kerouac. And ever since I read this, I aim to achieve it. So far without success. Finding the right and simple words is hard work. The same is said with the quote “I wanted to write you a short letter, but I only had time for a long one”, which is assigned to Goethe, Lichtenberg, Pascal, Swift and others. Meaning, that boiling something down to the essential is hard work.

My problem is also my love for complexity. I enjoy complexity to a certain degree. Especially when I’m able to understand it. But that is also the point I usually trip over. When I want to explain some part of a complex system, I need too many words. I want to explain all the elements, and rules, and dependencies, and perspectives. Because in my mental model they matter. And as I don’t know if my “reader” is aware of all these wonderful connections, I have to mention them as well.

It’s hard to focus on explaining just one aspect, when there is a whole system around it.

There are many issues with long explanations. Writing them can lead you in the wrong direction, you loose focus of what you actually wanted to say. People don’t read or listen, because too many lack the attention span or the willingness to pay attention.

The issue with short explanations is that people might misunderstand it or don’t know where to put it in their mental model. You might simplify it too much, so that it looses what you tried to say.

Complex systems are made of simple rules and elements, just with too many of all of them. When picking some aspect of the system and describing it, there needs to be a middle ground. A Goldilocks zone between simplicity and complexity.

Drop everything that is not necessary. But not necessary for whom? You might not know your audience. You don’t know what they already know. For some it will be clear with just one explanation. Others need more context. Some might not have any foundation. So, where is the middle ground?

The answer is, I don’t know it. I try to reduce context. But then I find too many good examples not to share. What is better, have a short, precise statement with some examples, or write it more convoluted that can then be applied by the audience to their context?

One example is conference talks. Some of them. They describe the problem, describe a solution with usually three bullet points. Great! Love those talks. Usually these don’t take more then 5-10 minutes to come to this point. But then there are 20-30 more minutes of time to fill. And then they repeat the points over and over.
One of my favorite sessions of all time was a 2015 EuroStar session called “Lightning Strikes the Speakers”, where I think 8 people had 5 minutes each to present a topic. It was on point. Clear messages. No fluff. Maybe too many topics and ideas in a short time frame to digest, but they were all on point.

I hope to break down my future topics even further. Stay short. Stay meaningful. One example, and be done with it. Fingers crossed.