Thinking · Advanced · 4 min
How to Talk About Abstract Ideas
Freedom, quality, fairness, trust, the words that matter most communicate least. There’s a ladder for that.
One skill: Climbing the ladder of abstraction
Say “we value integrity” to a room and watch what happens: every head nods, and every head means something different. Abstract words are agreement machines that transmit nothing, the higher a word floats, the more people accept it and the less anyone receives. Yet the biggest subjects, justice, quality, love, strategy, live up there. So how do you talk about them without saying nothing?
The ladder, and why the brain needs both ends
S. I. Hayakawa gave the problem its classic tool: the ladder of abstraction. Every concept exists at many altitudes, at the bottom, one specific cow named Bessie; a rung up, “livestock”; higher, “farm assets”; at the top, “wealth”. Nothing is wrong with any rung. Meaning fails only when a speaker parks at one altitude, all top is fog, all bottom is trivia.
Memory research explains why the bottom rungs do the heavy lifting: Allan Paivio’s dual-coding theory showed concrete, imageable words are stored twice (as language and as mental imagery) while abstract words get only the verbal code. “One customer, calling twice about the same bug” is filed in two systems; “suboptimal service reliability” in one, weakly. The listener’s imagery channel is idle until you feed it something picturable.
Move, and tie the string
- The down-shift rule. Every abstract claim buys the next sentence a trip down the ladder: state the principle, then land on a Tuesday. “We value speed. Last sprint we shipped the fix the same afternoon it was reported.”
- The up-shift rule. After a story, climb one rung to say what it means: otherwise you told an anecdote, not an argument. “That afternoon is what I mean by speed.”
- One anchor per abstraction. Each big word gets one concrete tie, not five: the point is the string, not a pile of examples.
- Mistake #1: defining abstractions with abstractions. “Integrity means accountability” is a ladder going sideways. Definitions descend or they don’t define.
- Mistake #2: staying low out of fear. All-story speakers are vivid and pointless. The meaning lives one rung up; visit it.
✗ Parked at the top
“Our culture empowers synergistic ownership of quality outcomes.”
✓ Riding the ladder
“We own quality. When the checkout bug appeared at 6pm,”
“the engineer who wrote it cancelled dinner and fixed it.”
“That (not a poster) is the culture.”
Your turn
The ladder run
Pick one abstract word you actually use, “fairness”, “growth”, “respect”.
- Say the word, then descend three rungs out loud: category → instance → one specific moment you witnessed.
- Now climb back: say what that moment proves, in one sentence containing the original word.
- Total: five sentences. That up-down round trip is the entire craft.
Practice it for real
The genres built around values and opinions are ladder territory, every prompt hands you a balloon and dares you to find the anchor.
- The button below opens a Values prompt: a big word looking for its anchor.
- Whatever the prompt, apply the down-shift rule: no abstract sentence without a Tuesday under it.
- In the transcript, count sentences that stayed at the top. Each one is next take’s target.
Key takeaways
- Abstract words are agreement machines: everyone nods, nothing transfers.
- Concrete language is stored twice in memory (verbal + imagery); abstractions only once.
- The craft is motion on the ladder: principle down to a Tuesday, story up to its meaning.
- One anchor per abstraction; definitions must descend.
Cheat sheet
The Ladder
- Down-shift rule
- Every principle buys the next sentence a Tuesday.
- Up-shift rule
- After the story, one rung up: what it means.
- One anchor each
- A single concrete tie per big word.
- Definitions descend
- Abstraction defined by abstraction is fog squared.
articulate AI · Learn
References
- Hayakawa, S. I. (1949). Language in Thought and Action. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York.
- Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255-287. doi:10.1037/h0084295
- Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717-726. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9