How can I be concise when explaining complex subjects?

It sounds like your approach is ok, but here's a few things I have picked up from experience:

* Always give an overview - a complete, but low-resolution version of the whole picture. Identify key parts of the picture by name and use those same names when you get into more detail

* Number and name things. If there are 3 points, tell people there are 3 points. Then cover them...1, 2, 3. Don't get into sub-points like 2.1, 2.2 so that people lose track of the fact that there are 3 points.

* There's an old mantra that goes "Say what you're going to say; say it; then say that you have said it". That's 100% the way to go imo. Tell people "I'm going to give you a quick overview of the 3 main points first; then I'll go into detail on each of those 3 points. That'll take longer. Then I'll recap in case anything is still unclear, then we'll have Q & A".

* When you transition from one thing to another, refer back to the outline you established so that people know where they are on the map, i.e. "So much for point #2. Now, point #3...". Or "So that's the 500-foot view. Now I"ll go through each of these points in more detail...".

* Don't try to anticipate the questions too much. You'll be wrong about what what's going to give people difficulty no matter what, so listen to how people react and adjust accordingly!

Thanks for your input. Trimming the fat of my communication would be helpful.

This statement nailed one of my problems:

"Don't try to anticipate the questions too much. You'll be wrong about what what's going to give people difficulty no matter what"

If I stop doing that, it will reduce my verbosity by about 50% or more.

The question you need to ask yourself is why do you feel you need to be so verbose in your answers? When I was more junior, I felt over-explaining concepts/answers/etc in great depth would impart confidence in my audience that I knew what I was talking about, when in reality, it often did just the opposite because people tend to only want the answer to their question, not the entire philosophy and means of how it's solved. More to the point, you tell an upper management all the caveats, problems, and exceptions in the same convo as your recommended solution, and that will often plant a seed of doubt in their mind regarding your proposed solution.

TLDR: The man that truly knows his shit through and through is confident and doesn't feel the need to over-explain every detail unless specifically asked to provide such detail. Over-explaining by default makes me wonder "did you just learn this or something and are excited about it and want to overshare all this detail? Hmm, gonna get a senior person to review your proposal... complicated != cheap/fast/reliable"

TLDR TLDR: would you continue to use a search engine that takes 30 minutes per query to get you an answer or switch to the search engine that gives concise 1-2 min tailored answers limited to answering exactly what was asked? by far most people would use the latter. that's your audience.

Part of it has to do with English being my second language. I have a slight accent from an uncommon country. At times I want to ensure people understood me despite my accent. Repetition is one way I ensure that.

That's not the only reason, but it is a contributing factor.

Edit for your edit: You have an interesting perspective of would you use a search engine that took 30 minutes to give an answer.

> Repetition is one way I ensure that.

...or you could just wait for them to ask for clarification and additional detail if necessary. Assuming people can't understand you or follow your answers by default can come across as extremely arrogant and belittling and that instantly shuts a lot of people down to listening to anything further you have to say. Especially when you're answering a simple question with a 25 min over-explanation.

Yeah, my SO has said the same thing. Sometimes I assume everyone is dumb which is not my intent, but it comes across that way.

Another reply said something similar, I should stop trying to anticipate questions and answer them. Instead explain and then respond to questions if they come up.

Yep, less is more here. Let people ask for detail/clarificaiton if and when they need or want it. For all other times, KISS (keep it simple stupid).

There's a huge difference between spoken and written communications. Don't use the same methods for both.

Over-explaining comes from lack of confidence: either in yourself or in your estimate of the other person to understand. Talk slower, take pauses, and be more interactive. Don't rush.

Provide the right amount of context. Gauge if they need more or you can shorten it. Go back and fill in if necessary. Different people listen differently. Some want the facts. Some want the story of how the facts were determined, etc. Effective communication isn't easy.

Btw, the way you wrote your post is in good form for someone like me to take in. I tend to overestimate others ability to understand and speak tersely. At the same time, I'll usually always start with some context. I know some people who just start blurting thoughts out of nowhere expecting you to have read their mind for context.

Here's a way to "cheat" your way out of this problem. Write it down.

Whenever you find yourself explaining the same thing several times, either to a single person or to several people, just put down the argument in a short memo, word doc, email, powerpoint, whatever. Send it to the last person who needed it, or just save it somewhere. Next time you're asked you can just send them the writeup.

I have the same problem as you. The underlying condition is that often times I'm just too lazy to write down what I have in mind. But being lazy results in more effort in the end.

Don't be lazy like me.

Tough spot - these days people look for tailored information for the answer to only their question. But often they really need all the context in order to understand the answer to just their question. (And we all hope they grow into stewards of the whole answer.)

At work, you could maintain documents for things you need to explain in detail, and when verbally discussing specific parts, reference relevant parts of the written doc.

I've started following a simple pattern, if there is documentation point them to it, if there is no documentation write it, then point them to it.

What trips me up is questions in meetings that are onerous.

"From your question, it sounds like you may have an assumption we should set the servers on fire, I can see where you got there, but I think not setting them on fire is the way to go, I think this doc has some info about that" it feels crazy at first, try it. (I hate it it and do it. People have very fragile egos these days. You're being extremely accommodating but it will protect your reputation)

Deliberate practice. You're a developer so you know how important it is to keep code short, tidy, and obvious. Keeping natural language explanations short, tidy, and obvious is equally important.

Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old then you don't understand it yourself." Ouch.

Honestly, i don't think there's a single answer because there isn't a single audience.

One issue I encounter is in group discussions e.g. management meetings. Lack of detail up-front leads to derailment from edge-cases or whataboutery as the conversation moves on. Whereas excessive detail up-front leads to derailment from nit-picking, or abject boredom, or failing to catch all the detail.

During this sort of conversation I scribble notes about the points I want to raise. Then let everyone else talk to see if my points are raised or if I learn something new. Finally, I try to raise points by saying something like "there are three things I'd say about X", followed by a super-brief headline for each point. Single sentences. That should be enough, but if not, I'd expand each as required.

But even this has issues. Management meetings can be fraught, and time is scarce. Waiting until after others have spoken means that they may have sucked the life from the conversation and people may be impatient to move on. I'm aware of coming across as someone who simply wants to stick their beak into every conversation.

So, I've tried to be more Zen and simply let things go, or take certain conversations off-line i.e. discuss in depth outside the room. Results vary.

Good luck! :)

I'm a thinker, but when I start talking my brain freezes up. Maybe I need to start writing things down like you, this will allow me to organize my thoughts before I share them. Thanks.

Yeah, this is actually what prompted me to always have pen and paper (or similar) on hand during meetings. It's a crutch, but I think it's helped me be more organised when talking generally. Even in non-work situations I often make mental notes while listening to others talk about complex subjects (politics for instance). Just bullet-points/headlines so when I start talking I know "okay I've got three things to say: X, Y, Z". It helps me keep track in fast-paced conversations. But again, letting go of some things can be more important than saying everything you want to say.