Sharing Stories

You’re sitting on the beach, about to share a story with a friend. You have something important to say, and how you say it will determine whether your friend actually understands—or whether they nod politely, eyes glazing over.

As I often have discuss, sometimes context is the single most important factor in what we say and when.  It frames the story and helps your friend understand where you’re coming from. If you launch into a complicated explanation about your job or a new project without explaining why it matters, your friend might feel lost. But if you first share why you’re excited or how this story connects to their interests, they’re more likely to engage. Context bridges the gap between your world and theirs.

Next comes clarity—stripping away the verbal clutter to make your message easy to grasp. If your statements meander or your point gets buried under too many details, your friend might struggle to keep up. Clear language—short, direct sentences—helps your message land cleanly.

That raises the issue of information compression. Nobody wants to be stuck listening to a story that could have been summed up in a few words. Information compression is  distilling your message ; it doesn’t mean leaving out important parts, but rather prioritizing what truly matters. When you compress information properly, interlocutors absorb your point without getting lost.

Finally, information specificity brings the message to life. Generalities are like blurry photos. When you’re specific, people see in their mind’s eye and hear in their mind’s ear the sights and sounds that populate your thoughts.  Those specifics make your communications vivid and memorable, helping the other person truly connect to what you’re sharing.

So, next time you’re sharing a story, explaining a plan, or giving advice, think about context (why it matters), clarity (making it easy to follow), information compression (keeping it concise), and information specificity (making it come alive). Together, these elements transform your words from a jumble of sounds into something that sticks—something that truly resonates with listeners.  After all, the best communicators aren’t just speakers; they are bridges between hearts and minds.

To illustrate my points, imagine someone telling the story of a bad first day at a new job. I’ll give you two versions; the first violates the ideas I discussed and the second embodies them.

Version 1: Poor Communication (lacking context, clarity, compression, and specificity)

"So, like, yesterday, I went to that place, you know, and it was really, like, not what I thought it would be. I mean, there was so much stuff going on, and I didn’t even know what to do. And then I messed up and made a big mistake with some, like, important thing that was there, and the person, I think, didn’t really like it. And then I had to do this other thing with the thing, and it was all just too much, and I felt really bad after. I hope tomorrow’s better."

Version 2: Effective Communication (with context, clarity, information compression, and specificity)

"Yesterday was my first day at the new marketing firm downtown, and it didn’t go as planned. First, I arrived 15 minutes late because of a traffic accident on the interstate, which stressed me out immediately. Then, during the team meeting, I accidentally spilled coffee on my boss’s presentation. I apologized, but the tension lingered, and I could tell my boss wasn’t happy. Afterward, I got assigned to a project I wasn’t fully briefed on, and I felt overwhelmed trying to catch up. Overall, I left feeling embarrassed and worried about how I came across."

My bare-bones communication compression of Version 1 and Version 2 is:

Context: The first version doesn’t clarify where, when, or even what the setting is.  The second establishes where and when the event happened (first day at a marketing firm downtown).

Clarity: The first version is vague and jumps around with ambiguous pronouns (“the thing,” “some, like, important thing”). The second clearly lays out what happened in sequence.

Information Compression: The first version is cluttered with filler words and meandering thoughts. The second one is concise, but still informative.

Specificity: The first version leaves everything open to interpretation. The second one provides concrete details: being late because of traffic, spilling coffee, tension with the boss, feeling overwhelmed.

Of  course, it's one thing to think about communication context, clarity, information compression, and specificity within an abstract, intellectual exercise  as now, and quite another to consistently communicate that way in real-time. The latter, at minimum, requires your  metacognition. As I have discussed many times, to metacommunicate is to think about thinking. In the present "communication context" that means thinking about and following through with your best efforts to ensure proper context, clarity, information compression, and specificity. By doing so, you will establish common ground with your interlocutor so that they are motivated to hear your story and understand it, as intended.