We unconsciously frame abstract concepts like 'argument is war' or 'a relationship is a journey' using concrete metaphors. These are not just figures of speech but core cognitive frameworks that dictate our approach to negotiation, conflict, and collaboration. Recognizing them is the first step to changing your perspective and outcome.
While we claim to value directness, relationships are built on shared fictions and assumptions that would be destroyed by blunt honesty. For example, explicitly stating the limits of a friendship ('I can only talk for 25 minutes') would kill it, even if true. Indirectness is necessary to maintain these foundational ground rules.
The power of a curse word isn't just its taboo subject matter. It's that its use establishes a shared understanding that the speaker is deliberately trying to elicit an involuntary emotional reaction. This makes it effective for conveying strong feelings but inappropriate in neutral settings where no emotional provocation is desired.
Bad writing often happens because experts find it impossible to imagine what it's like *not* to know something. This "curse" leads them to assume their private knowledge is common knowledge, causing them to omit jargon explanations, abbreviations, and concrete examples. The key to clarity is empathy for the reader's perspective.
We use hints and innuendo not to deny what we said, but to avoid a state where both parties know the other knows the true intent. This "common knowledge" can irrevocably change a relationship, whereas indirectness allows a shared fiction (e.g., a platonic friendship) to continue even after a proposition is rejected.
Grace in writing isn't just about elegant sentences; it's about making the entire passage flow. This is achieved through coherence, using connector words like 'however,' 'moreover,' and 'for example.' These seemingly small words act as the glue that links ideas, showing the reader how each sentence logically follows from the last.