Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques

The secret to better communication isn’t adding more—it’s knowing what to leave out.
Communication isn’t clearer when you say more — it’s clearer when you say less. As David Epstein puts it, we’re wired to keep adding, even when “the better solution is often what you take away.” The challenge isn’t having ideas; it’s choosing which one actually matters.
Epstein is an author and investigative journalist known for his New York Times bestseller Range. In his latest book, Inside the Box, he explores how constraints can sharpen creativity and elevate thinking, a theme that reflects his broader work at the intersection of psychology, performance, and innovation. “If you assume someone will only remember one thing,” he explains, “decide what that is before you start talking.” That simple constraint forces clarity — and changes how we communicate entirely.
In this episode of Think Fast Talk Smart, Epstein and host Matt Abrahams unpack why limits make us better communicators and thinkers. From the dangers of “featuritis” to the creative breakthroughs sparked by restriction, they explore how blocking familiar paths leads to more original ideas and communication.

To listen to the extended Deep Thinks version of this episode, please visit FasterSmarter.io/premium.

Episode Reference Links:
Connect:

Chapters:

  • (00:00) - Introduction
  • (00:46) - Featuritis & Overload
  • (02:25) - Constraints & Creativity
  • (06:35) - Chunking Information
  • (07:56) - Familiarity & Innovation
  • (08:58) - Clarifying Through Feedback
  • (11:29) - Defining the Problem
  • (12:51) - Precluding Default Approaches
  • (14:31) - The Final Three Questions
  • (20:25) - Conclusion

********
Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.

Strawberry.me. Get 50% off your first coaching session today at Strawberry.me/smart

Join our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be. 

Creators and Guests

Host
Matt Abrahams
Lecturer Stanford University Graduate School of Business | Think Fast Talk Smart podcast host
Guest
David Epstein
Investigative Journalist | New York Times Best-selling Author

What is Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques?

One of the most essential ingredients to success in business and life is effective communication.

Join Matt Abrahams, best-selling author and Strategic Communication lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business, as he interviews experts to provide actionable insights that help you communicate with clarity, confidence, and impact. From handling impromptu questions to crafting compelling messages, Matt explores practical strategies for real-world communication challenges.

Whether you’re navigating a high-stakes presentation, perfecting your email tone, or speaking off the cuff, Think Fast, Talk Smart equips you with the tools, techniques, and best practices to express yourself effectively in any situation. Enhance your communication skills to elevate your career and build stronger professional relationships.

Tune in every Tuesday for new episodes. Subscribe now to unlock your potential as a thoughtful, impactful communicator. Learn more and sign up for our eNewsletter at fastersmarter.io.

Matt Abrahams: Constraints
catalyze communication.

My name's Matt Abrahams and I
teach Strategic Communication at

Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Welcome to Think Fast
Talk Smart, the podcast.

Today I look forward to
chatting with David Epstein.

David is a science writer and
investigative journalist, best known

for his number one New York Times
bestseller range and the Sports

Gene in his latest book Inside The
Box, how Constraints Make Us Better.

He explores the counterintuitive cognitive
science showing that the limits we have.

Free us up to be more creative.

Well, welcome David.

Thanks for being here.

I really look forward to
learning from you today.

David Epstein: It's a pleasure to be here.

Thanks for having me.

Matt Abrahams: Okay.

Shall we get started?

David Epstein: Let's do it.

Matt Abrahams: In reading Inside
the box, I really resonated with,

when you talk about the Christmas
tree effect or featuritis.

Can you share what these ideas mean and
how can we prevent when we communicate in

our core ideas from being drowned in just
the unnecessary complexity of so many of

the things we end up communicating about?

David Epstein: That's a great question
because those are phrases that come from

designers primarily, featuritis and the
Christmas tree effect, that essentially

mean the same thing, adding more.

So featuritis is like you get carried
away by always adding features to things.

The Christmas tree effect is similar,
meaning you just keep putting ornaments

on the tree over and over and over.

And humans have a hardwired what's
called additive bias to always solve

problems by putting more and more on.

In a related bias, the flip side
called subtractive neglect bias,

we tend to overlook solutions
that involve taking things away.

I think when it comes to communication,
and I've been guilty of this for sure,

I'm curious about a lot of things and
I have a desire to impart everything

that I think is interesting to someone.

And I think that shows in my first book,
which did well, but in retrospect, going

back, there are things in here that
I would take out looking at it now.

So I feel like an antidote to featuritis
when it comes to communication

would be something like, assuming
the other person's gonna forget

everything except one thing you said.

Now decide what that one thing is
before you're opening your mouth.

That doesn't mean you
can't add other things.

But that one thing you wanna
make sure that you get across.

And I think that's an approach, like
many good constraints do, can help

you clarify priorities when you're
trying to communicate clearly.

Matt Abrahams: Yeah.

One of the things that I coach the
people I coach and the students

I teach is to really think of the
bottom line first before you speak.

And I like how you said, what's
the most important thing?

And then build the message from
there rather than thinking of

everything you have to say and
hoping that some of it sticks.

Growing up, one of my favorite books
as a kid was Green Eggs and Ham.

I love Dr. Seuss.

Can you tell the story of Dr. Seuss,
Theodor Geisel, and The Cat in the

Hat, and how that was written with
vocabulary restriction in mind?

And how can that type of restriction
lead to new and novel input and output?

And have you thought about that in the
way you do your communication, and perhaps

all of us could do our communication?

David Epstein: So Dr. Seuss, we take
for granted now that there's a lot of

interesting children's literature, but at
the time he was working, it was boring.

Like I went back and read some of
the stuff and it was just super

literal stuff, very pedantic.

And Dr. Seuss was asked to create a
children's book using only 200 words from

a kid's vocabulary list that he was given.

And so what does he do?

First he starts complaining to his wife.

'Cause he looks through and he says,
there's basically no adjectives.

And in fine Seussian form, he compares
it to trying to make a strudel without

any strudels, which I love because
it's like he was the same person

in private as he was in public.

But then he gets exasperated and
decides he's just gonna take the

first two rhyming words on the
list and write a book around them.

And the first two rhyming words are
cat and hat, and the rest is history.

But that restriction forced him
to experiment with rhythm because

he couldn't experiment vocabulary.

And after he did that, his famous
publisher bet him that he couldn't

do it again using only 50 words.

And he did that for Green Eggs
and Ham where he had to experiment

with rhythm even more because
what can you do with 50 words?

And it became this rollicking tale,
of course, that spawned imitators

and changed children's literature.

And gave rise to psychological
effect known as the Green Eggs and

Ham effect, which is the idea that
the quickest path to creativity

is by blocking familiar solutions.

So our brains are actually lazy.

You know, you may think your brain is
made for thinking, but it's actually

made for preventing you from having
to think whenever possible because

thinking is energetically costly.

So if you're given complete
freedom, you'll just go down

what cognitive scientists call
the path of least resistance.

You'll just do the thing that feels
convenient or that you've done before.

And so the best way to become creative
or have new ideas is to take that away.

So in a communication perspective, one
thing I would think of is, let's say

you're going into a client meeting or
something and you say, if we were not

allowed to pitch or recommend or say the
usual thing, what would we do instead?

And I think that can be a fruitful thought
exercise for thinking of what are other

ways we could frame this, or what are
other ways we could propose this, or maybe

even directly in the communication medium,
if we were not allowed to communicate this

using PowerPoint slides or whatever it is
that we're used to, how would we do it?

I'm not saying you necessarily have
to do that, but it tends to be a

very generative exercise in figuring
out what is the core of this thing

and what are ways to communicate it.

Matt Abrahams: I love the backstory on Dr.
Seuss's initial successes and this idea

of putting constraints into communication
to get you to think differently about it.

I have a colleague who when they
do an activity in class and they're

teaching conflict resolution, they
ask the students to have a conflict,

they create a simulated conflict, and
the students can only ask questions.

They can't make declarations.

And you can see how it would
change the dynamic, right?

And again, she's not advocating that
every conflict should be resolved

through questioning exclusively,
but it changes your mindset

and it changes how you listen.

David Epstein: When I'm in my mode as a
journalist, I think I'm legitimately a

better person because it's not that I'm
only asking questions, but it's that I go

into every conversation with the mindset
of trying to understand, not to be right.

And that frame just makes so much
difference in how the conversation goes.

Matt Abrahams: Yeah, absolutely.

And I think the challenge for all of us,
you first have to recognize the habits

and patterns, heuristics, that you have
to then begin to challenge them and

say, okay, now we're not gonna do this.

But I think there are a lot of
possibilities and another reframe you

could use, go into any situation as
a journalist, what would a journalist

do here could be really helpful.

What is chunking and how can it
help us in our communication?

David Epstein: Chunking is in
the sense that psychologists

use, it means essentially the
grouping together of information.

So maybe I can give you an example, would
be an easy way to explain the phenomenon.

If I said 20 random words to you
right now and asked you to repeat them

back, you'd have trouble doing that.

If I gave you 20 words in a sentence,
you may well be able to repeat that

back to me, or at least most of it,
and they could be the same 20 words

just in the first case mixed up.

But it will make your memory seem so
much better because you've learned a

system of grammar and groups and phrases
of words that are chunked or collected

into groups in your brain, so you're not
actually remembering 20 different things.

You're remembering just a few different
chunks that fit together in some

coherent scheme, and that's how humans
are able to remember and access as much

information as we can because we chunk
information into related, meaningful

groups and then into these broader
networks or templates of knowledge.

Matt Abrahams: So how
does this lead to novelty?

How does it lead to creativity and
new ideas when you're attaching to

previous existing old information?

David Epstein: Our older ideas or
familiar ideas are actually the jumping

off point for new ideas typically.

In fact, as I was doing the research for
the book, one of the things I learned

was that the idea that creativity and
originality are synonymous was not even

a thing until the late 18th century
and this group of people that wanted

to say not everything is logical,
like creative inspiration comes in

these lightning strikes out of the
blue and there's no rhyme or reason

to it, and that's not really true.

It actually typically comes from modifying
ideas that are already very familiar.

And I think if we're thinking about
this in a communication frame, one of

the important things is that if you
want to get people to come along with

creative or radical ideas, a really
important thing you have to do is ground

it in things that are very familiar to
them, and then layer the more radical

thing on top of it so that this vision
of change also comes along with it

an embedded vision of continuity.

Matt Abrahams: Demonstrating consistency
and showing how what you're talking about

is familiar, it makes it easier for people
to one, buy into it and to follow through.

Anybody listening to this show knows
that I am a huge advocate for frameworks

and structure and communication for the
very reasons you've just talked about.

They allow us to understand and predict
what's coming so we can dedicate

and focus more information on it.

We're not good at remembering just
list after list, item after item.

When you package it in a structure like
problem, solution, benefit, past, present,

future, all of a sudden that chunking
allows us to have a framework that we can

attach to and it makes it more memorable.

So I definitely appreciate you defining
that term that helps us see something

that we often talk about on the show.

In your book, you talk about
the podcast, This American

Life, one of my favorite shows.

Can you share with us what you learned
from your interviewing of them?

David Epstein: I did a piece for
This American Life and I had never

written anything for radio or
narrative podcasts essentially.

And this was like a 35 minute
piece that I'm writing.

I know nothing about what I'm doing, and
I'm a science writer, so I was used to

putting a lot of technical information
in articles, or reasonably technical,

and that's okay when people can stop
and reread it or slow down, not so

okay when it's flying by them in audio.

And so This American Life had
this system where you do these

read-throughs where it's like Ira Glass
sitting there holding a stopwatch.

You're reading the narration,
your producer hits play when you

wanna play some interview audio.

And then people say what confused them.

They don't tell you how to solve it.

You have to do something, you can't
ignore, but they don't tell you how.

And then you keep redoing that.

And every time you do it, there'd
be at least one new person who had

never heard it before, every time.

And that person gets to
say what confused them.

Then you just do that over and
over until the new person comes

in and says, nothing confused me.

I got everything.

And so the process titrated out confusion,
and it's a brutal process, but the

greatest editing process I've ever been
through because it just relentlessly

exposes all the assumptions you are making
about things that you know really well,

and that you've even lost track of the
fact that not everybody knows this stuff.

And even though I'm sensitive to that
as a professional science communicator,

I'm thinking about that all the time.

And yet there's still stuff that just
becomes so routine or, or so obvious

to you once you know about it, but
it's not obvious to people who don't.

So it's a great system in that way
that people can really lose track of

what the other party doesn't understand
if they start taking for granted the

meaning of things in their world.

Matt Abrahams: The American Life
story highlights the importance of

making sure your audience understands.

But what I really like about
it is the question they asked,

they said, what is confusing?

Many of us will say, did
you understand everything?

Were things clear, et cetera.

But when you put it in,
hey, what was confusing?

That helps people be more specific,
and I really like that they

don't then give suggestions for
how to make it less confusing.

They leave that to you.

So that, I think, is where
that creativity comes in.

And I think you learn more when you're
not given direction on how to fix it.

And I'm really gonna take this lesson
to heart as a parent, as a teacher, as

a coach, because often it's my reaction
to then immediately give, here's

what I think you could do to fix it.

David Epstein: I thought it was fantastic
because just wrote a book obviously about

useful constraints, but there is clearly
such thing as too much constraint, right?

If you're telling someone what they
have to do and how they have to

do it, if the person says, there's
no room for me to surprise myself,

then it's too much constraint.

But in this case, it really impressed
upon me the power of having someone define

the problem for you really well, and
instantly you're fired up about solutions.

They'd say, I just did not understand
this beat in the story, whatever it was.

And if they could define it really
well, it feels very empowering for

then doing the problem solving.

I, I see the problem clearly.

In many cases, I think a clear
definition of the problem is the

best tool for getting it solved.

Matt Abrahams: Right, it
helps to distill that down.

Very good.

Another term I need you to
define for our listeners, what is

precluding and how does it work?

David Epstein: Yeah.

Precluding is, in this context,
blocking the most familiar solutions.

So, in the history of innovation,
preclude constraints are basically ever

present, where either by someone's choice.

In artistic innovation, it was often
the case that people did this by choice,

in order to innovate, in technological
innovation, in many cases, it was more

necessity, but that a preclude constraint
means it precludes the previous solution.

It blocks the path that has been
taken most regularly, and once that's

gone it's maybe the most generative
creative prompt you can possibly have.

The thing you're used to, the
thing everyone's always done,

you're not allowed to do it.

So what now?

How can you get this done?

It kind of reminded me, actually, one
of the early readers of the book was

a guy named Ed Hoffman, who was the
first chief knowledge officer at NASA,

basically like the head psychologist,
he stopped partway through and said, I

gotta tell you about this mission called
LCROSS, where the team ended up with

half the time in budget they expected.

And so what did they do?

First they complained and then they
said, well, if we were gonna get

this done anyway, how would we do it?

And it led them to repurpose things.

So they took imaging equipment from
army tanks and engine temperature

sensors from NASCAR and created a
probe that confirmed water on the moon.

It was incredibly innovative and
it led to other missions where they

realized they could repurpose lots of
technology, but they just never would've

done this if they hadn't been forced
off of the convenient path basically.

Matt Abrahams: And we can
challenge ourselves to do that.

We don't have to have some external
thing or people tell us that we can

say, what if this weren't possible or
this were taken away so we can actually

leverage this as a tool ourselves.

Before we end, I like to ask everybody
three questions, one I make up just

for you and two I've been asking
everybody I've interviewed in the past.

Are you up for that?

David Epstein: Absolutely.

Matt Abrahams: Alright.

I'm gonna give you a constraint.

If you were to give our listeners one
boundary that could help them in their

communication, what would that advice be?

David Epstein: Make the other
person's argument first.

I realize there's no rule that applies
to every situation, but I found this

when I critiqued Malcolm Gladwell pretty
stridently in my first book, and we ended

up, we first met for a public debate,
and then we became really good friends.

So this was a very generative
relationship based on disagreement.

One of the things that really helped
was at that initial debate, we decided

to start, he and I together, by stating
what we thought the other person's

argument was, and I think one, that gave
you some first empathy for the other

person's argument, but it also gave
the other person a chance to decide if

they were actually being misunderstood.

So you both had an understanding of if
the other person heard you and then you

could know what you were talking about
when you were having this discussion.

And so because of that, he and I then
became running buddies and all this stuff,

I started taking that forward to other
situations where I thought I might have

a different perspective than someone to
start off, even if it's just to myself.

Like that was a formal debate with him.

But even to myself, what do I think
the other person's point of view is?

And, and I will, if I think
it's appropriate, try to work

that in early in a conversation.

So what I'm hearing you say is, and
then you're basically fact checking

in real time and they'll correct it
if you're wrong, and that's useful.

So I think that idea of going in with
making the other person's argument

first, even if it's just to yourself,
is a really useful constraint to enter

certain types of conversations with.

Matt Abrahams: I really, really like that.

If nothing else, it puts you
in service of the audience.

It makes you focus on
what's going on for them.

Question number two, who is a
communicator that you admire and why?

David Epstein: Not to be redundant
here, but I do wanna say it's Malcolm

Gladwell because in those series of
disagreements that led to us becoming

good friends, he was very open-minded.

So we had a debate at the same forum, 5
years apart, and the second time around,

he started saying the things that I
had convinced him of, and I didn't have

nearly as much professional capital
the first time we met for a debate.

You could have just crushed
me just because of who you

are, and you're very clever.

And he said, yeah, but I have the
luxury of learning from my critics.

And that stuck with me so much.

The idea that an earnest critic,
you have the luxury of learning from

them instead of becoming defensive.

And now I've seen that in his writing
where he has decided some things that

he wrote that became very famous, are
not right, and has changed direction.

And I think that's an amazing thing to
do when you've been so successful with

a certain idea, because I've definitely
seen the opposite of other writers

who, once they've become successful
with an idea, they are not changing

their mind, no matter the evidence.

So his ability to acknowledge that and
address it even directly, I think is

rare and amazing and quite frankly,
became really a role model for me.

Matt Abrahams: That notion of there's
something to be learned from the criticism

and just the openness there, I think
we could all learn something from.

Final question for you, David.

What are the first three ingredients that
go into a successful communication recipe?

David Epstein: I think identifying the
type of conversation you're having.

We've all probably had this issue
at some point where you are saying

something or someone else is saying
something you're upset about and one

party offers solutions and really it's
a I need to be heard conversation.

And I think that can be a very
upsetting disconnect for both sides.

So identifying the conversation type.

I think keeping in mind what psychologists
call the peak end rule, which is that the

way your brain remembers an experience
is more or less an average of the moment

of peak intensity and the last moment.

You may not be able to do much
about the moment of peak intensity,

but you can end on a good note.

That end moment has more weight
than just an average moment.

And the third I would say, and this is
more group focused, would be relatively

equal conversational turn taking.

So, not that everyone has to have a turn
in every case, but there is a body of

research that I write about in the new
book that shows that one of the hallmarks

of teams that are good at solving problems
together is that over the course of a

day, for example, if they're working
together, there will be relatively

equal conversational turn taking.

When I was writing about Pixar, where
Ed Catmull, the co-founder, told

me that they banned Steve Jobs from
certain feedback meetings specifically

because as he became this larger than
life personality they felt his voice

would take up too much space and crowd
out other people who might have a lot

to add but not be quite as eloquent.

Or there's this colloquial term,
HIPPO, highest paid person's opinion,

where if that person speaks, everyone
will start to gravitate around them.

So I think putting boundaries
in place that facilitate more

equal conversational turn taking.

Matt Abrahams: I really
appreciate the three ingredients.

They're very specific and
they're all science-based.

Be aware of what type of conversation
you're having, what's needed in this

conversation, what's your role in it?

Think about how they end and can you
end it in a way that increases the

likelihood that people will remember it
and have the experience you want them

to, and then to really consider the
turn taking that takes place because

that does impact how people feel about
it and the quality of the interactions.

David, this has been fantastic.

In many ways you've unconstrained
my thinking and hopefully that

of our listeners, even though the
book was all about constraints.

Thank you so much.

Good success on Inside the Box,
and I appreciate learning from

you and having our conversation.

David Epstein: I enjoyed this very much.

Thank you.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you for
joining us for another episode of

Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast.

To learn more about constraints, please
listen to episode 108 with Dan Klein,

Adam Tobin, and Patricia Ryan Madsen.

This episode was produced by Katherine
Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams.

Our music is from Floyd Wonder.

With special thanks to
Podium Podcast Company.

Please find us on YouTube and
wherever you get your podcasts.

Be sure to subscribe and rate us.

Also follow us on LinkedIn,
TikTok, and Instagram.

And check out fastersmarter.io for
deep dive videos, English language

learning content, and our newsletter.

Please also consider joining the Think
Fast Talk Smart Learning Community

at fastersmarter.io/learning.

You'll find video lessons, learning
quests, discussion boards, my

AI coach, and our book club.

Again, that's fastersmarter.io/learning
to become part of the Think Fast

Talk Smart Learning Community.