A Trick to Talk Less, But Say Much, Much More
When was the last time you learned something while you were talking? The answer to that question is very likely never. The learning happens after you shut your trap and someone else begins talking.
I’m not saying that every person is baring their soul and telling the truth when they speak (that is obviously not the case). What I am saying is that when others are talking — even if they’re lying — you can learn something (even if what you learn is that this person isn’t trustworthy); when you are talking, you can’t.
With that in mind, I would like to introduce a simple rule I stumbled upon that can help you do this better: take a 3:1 approach to restraint in speech. The rule has 3 aspects to it, and all 3 are listed below.
1) Wait three beats after someone else speaks before you begin to respond.
2) When you do speak, aim for a 3:1 question to statement ratio — ask 3 questions for each statement you make.
3) If you do make a statement limit it to 3 sentences in support of 1 main idea sentence.
1. Wait 3 Beats After Someone Finishes Speaking Before You Speak
When you’re in a conversation, and someone else finishes what they are saying, wait 3 beats (1…2…3…) before you start the process of responding. I don’t mean that you should have your response ready and then wait 3 beats before you let it out of your mouth. I mean wait 3 beats before you begin mentally putting together your statement.
There are three key benefits of waiting three beats before speaking.
- It ends up limiting how often you speak, which usually boosts your credibility. You’ll find that when you have to wait a little longer after someone speaks to put in your two cents, you’ll end up speaking less often. Others will jump in just after you normally would have, or the person who just finished will speak again. At first this may be frustrating. We all want to be understood, and it seems like putting in our two cents is the best way to accomplish that goal. But as time goes on, you’ll find that some of the things you would have said. if you were able to jump in and speak right away, were both not useful and perhaps not even your real opinion. That leads to less self-contradiction, less noise around you, and can really only increase your credibility when you do end up speaking.
- It gives you time to gain the most benefit from what has just been said by others, and formulate a brief and meaningful response to what has been asked of you. Telling is not selling. You’ve probably heard that before. If you want those you converse with to understand and believe you, then you’re doing some kind of selling. One thing you’ll notice in waiting 3 beats is that people will tend to have one or two more things to tack on after you think they were done speaking. That information can tend to be very useful, especially in a business context, because it’s often something that is said as a reaction to silence — something the person didn’t have time to run through preparation and their filters. That kind of information can be the most useful kind — especially when it comes from those you’re trying to get something from.
- It establishes some distance from your impulsive emotional thoughts, and allows for a more calm and collected style of conversing. Some exchanges can pluck the chords of emotion, and you have probably experienced the negative fallout from saying something too quickly because you felt such a strong emotion pushing you to speak. Taking 3 beats allows you to put a little distance between your involuntary emotional reaction and your intentional action of speaking. In most cases, the less that your response is serving your immediate emotions, the better. Now, 3 beats may not be enough to totally cool off before responding, but as long as others are in the conversation with you, it might be enough to let someone else make the mistake of getting worked up and blurting out something they’ll later regret.
Part 2: Aim for 3:1 Question to Statement Ratio
When you do speak, prioritize asking questions over making statements. A good experiment to try is to aim for a 3:1 ratio of questions to statements — 3 questions for every 1 statement.
It is worth noting that this 3:1 ratio is not meant to be used all of the time, but rather a approach to try, so that you can learn more information and change your disposition. Obviously, if everyone went around doing this all of the time, our conversations would look like an episode of Whose Line Is It Anyway? — that is to say, pretty ridiculous.
In terms of a little clarification, try to make the questions open-ended (i.e., not answerable by “yes” or “no”), and try to make them the kind with answers you don’t already know. The purpose behind this part of the 3:1 rule is to condition you to be more inquisitive, and slower to think you have the answers. Developing that kind of nonjudgmental, curious disposition is a useful tool — both professionally and personally. (thanks to David Smooke for bringing this to my attention)
Asking more questions in this way can do a few things. First, you’ll be getting to know more about those you work with or live with, and will also help them to warm up to you more (so long as they sense that you’re listening). People tend to feel better about those who seem interested in them, and there is no better way to show interest than to ask more questions.
Secondly, you might just find yourself realizing just how much you don’t know, as you receive answers that contradict your current opinions. When I first began to ask questions in this way, I was amazed at how much a house of cards my current structure of supposed “knowledge” was.
We carry around so many assumptions with us on a daily basis — ones that are flat out contradicted by the facts. What is worse, we quite often act on them.
Finally, in racking your brain to come up with more questions, you will likely find yourself asking better questions — the kind that get people thinking; the kind that can open your and others’ minds to more creative solutions to difficult problems. In short, asking more and better questions can help you and others come up with more and better possible answers — or at least reveal to you no shortage of other avenues to explore.
Part 3: Aim for a Maximum of 3 Supporting Sentences and 1 Conclusion
If you do make a statement, limit it to a maximum of 3 sentences in support of 1 main point. Think of it as an argument with a maximum of 3 premises and 1 conclusion — “I think X, because: this, that, and the other reason.”
I like to call this the “Bullet Principle”, because following it will have you speaking more like you would speak if you were reading off bullet points (but hopefully with the emotion and tone of someone doing more than just reading!).
There is a reason why bullet points are used so often in presentations and textbooks : they are effective. Bullet points present bite-sized, discrete pieces of information that your mind can glom onto. They give the mind definite footholds in a mountain of information. If you can harness the power of bullet points in your thinking and speaking, you can focus listeners’ attention on what you are really trying to say. You can also focus your own attention on a clear, linear, and orderly presentation of your thoughts, rather than losing yourself in your audience in an unordered and winding narrative.
While thinking in terms of bullets and arguments, you may also find that you end up speaking less often, as you can’t really find the 3 premise, 1 conclusion format of what you want to say. Some of the things you might be aching to say during a conversation might actually have little to support them. Holding off on saying them might not be the end of the world, and it might just save you from saying things that you just haven’t thought through enough yet.
The Benefits
Because I wouldn’t recommend advice that I haven’t followed, I’ll regale you with an anecdote about my experience with just the first part of this 3:1 approach.
I’m usually inclined to speak early and often in meetings. I used to think that this was a strength of mine, largely because I was doing well in my job. But because I’m always interested in doing better, I gave this approach a try, beginning with the waiting 3 beats approach. I was amazed at how many times I didn’t get the chance to speak because others were speaking so quickly. But I was also amazed at how little value came when people piped piped up quickly. I got in a few points, and kept them succinct. I left pleased with how the meeting went.
A particularly talkative coworker of mine, who happened to be on the board of directors, took note and commented to me that I was unusually quiet. I responded that I didn’t have anything to say. He challenged me that I usually had a lot to say, to which I responded “well, I do usually talk a lot, but was I really saying anything?” That may be a bit of a cliché, but it has stuck around for a reason.
And that’s the thing. When people are making statements right and left, how often are they really adding value to the conversation? How often are we talking, but not communicating anything? I think the answer might be quite a bit more than we think.