I Can't Express Myself Properly—I Can't Articulate My Ideas

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Meow

A single worded representation of absolute succinct communication   

Hahaha! 

[Leo Gura]

[zurew]

Aside from what already was mentioned, try to learn the basics of analytic philosophy.

Especially learn about inferences and how not to jump big in your logic.

You need to practice how to walk people through your ideas(train your mind how to handle objections - once you map out the premises you can ask at each premise: what would i say if the person wouldnt buy into this given premise?) and see multiple pathways how to get to your conclusion with more granularity.

But yeah just writing down your thoughtprocess and then reflecting on it and checking how easy it is to follow and how easy it is to track what your inference is will train you more than enough.

 

 

A more advanced move is to try to create an archetype or multiple archetypes in your mind about the type of person you want to write your response to and then try to think about what kind of objections that kind of archetype would bring up and try to get clear about at what level the disagreement will be  and  think about how to navigate those types of disagreements.

Edited Tuesday at 02:57 PM by zurew

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@zurew I'm stealing some of this advice 🙏 

I don't approach argument/ thought this way. It can leave me open to objections that I fail to push back on. Cheers!

[eTorro]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't focus on how to speak. Focus on understanding.

Damn! You bombed here.

Deeper understanding is the key.

Thanks.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@zurew I'm stealing some of this advice 🙏 

I don't approach argument/ thought this way. It can leave me open to objections that I fail to push back on. Cheers!

There is a lot more more other stuff that I find useful (this is basically my main conceptual toolbox). Some of these are very time-consuming depending on how granular you want to get with your arguments and how many objections you want to handle/prepare against. But this is also not just about arguments, but also about improving one's thinking and actually trying to be less biased in one's position and be more intellectually honest.

 

You can do the archetype stuff that I mentioned , and combine that with other techniques - like with the technique that I will label as collect-explain-snythesize:

You can think of it as a scientific project, but in this  case this is almost purely conceptual. You start with trying to collect all the avalaible data and facts that is relevant to the case or argument you try to build or that is relevant to the thing or phenomena you want to explain.  After that, you can combine that with the archetypes and try to generate at least one explanation/case from the perspective of each archetype - less wordy way to say it , is to say try to steelman each archetype. After that, you can try to build some kind of overarching perspective that takes into account all those steelmaned perspectives (and can maintain some of the positive features of each perspective, and or can also dodge or have a response to the negatives of each perspective)

Of course the meaning of 'positive' and 'negative' will be dependent on the goal of the project and what kind of function(s) a given perspective need to play or account for.

 

-----

 

There is also something that I label as Neighbor Position Stress Test : This is somewhat similar to the archetypes, but different in some relevant ways. 

The tactic is that when you hold a position, try to generate an indefinite number of other positions that are extremely similar to yours (just a slightly bit different, like imagine a guy who buys into all the premises that you hold, except one or a few) and check how you would argue against them or think about how they would argue with each other. The reason why this is different and important is because this shows you how many independent lines of justification you have for your exact position.

For instance, christians do this, where they will argue for a tri-omni God with an atheist, they will appeal to a bunch of things there , because they disagree on so many things (he can appeal to the content of the Bible, he can appeal to general arguments for God, he can appeal to arguments against materialism etc). But if two christians agree on literally everything (lets say except on the resurrection, or except on God being all powerful) - in that case, they will have an extremely hard time to argue for their specific position ,because there its not enough just to establish that God exists or that Jesus did some other miracles or that Christianity is overall true,  but you have to argue for one very specific premise without appealing to anything more abstract.

 

------

 

There is also the affirm/deny/agnostic frame that you can apply on each premise. You can ask what would I tell to a person who believes in the negation of  this premise,  and what would I tell to a person who is agnostic on this premise? Arguing with the agnostic is much harder, because there you need to make a case why witholding judgement with respect to that particular premise given all the avalaible info  is irrational or absurd.

 

----

 

There is also a more abstract tool that I call "Go one level of abstraction higher": After you map out some of the possible disagreements,  sometimes you find that you have a hard time arguing and using this tool is one way to find out how those types of disagreements are navigated using other contexts.  So the tactic is to find inspiration from other contexts where the exact same type of disagreement is present and then try to grab that and apply that to the context where your disagreement is / will be.

So for instance, when it comes to analytic philosophy a bunch of disagreements can be categorized under the realist vs constructivist frame (these two categories dont necessarily exhaust the possibility space and there is sometimes room for other alternative frames ,but we will go with this for now). So if you have a hard time arguing why you are a realist about lets say math, you can  take a step back, check how realist arguments are navigated and done  when it comes to lets say art or beauty and try to grab a line of argumentation from there and check if it works in your context.

A more intuitive example could be researching how you can generally persuade an agnostic person on any given premise and then try to use some of that that to persuade an agnostic when it comes to your specific premise.

 

----

 

The other research related tool is just simply checking what possible perspectives and positions can even be taken on the thing that you guys disagree on. This is related to how you can construct your archetypes,  because sometimes its unclear how could a given archetype even respond or what position they could even take, if you go deep enough with the disagreements.

 

---

And the last for now will be related to language stuff.

Its often the case, that a given term can be used in multiple ways and its easy to make the mistake of equivocation when you construct your arguments. So you can combine this with the collect-explain-snythesize technique, where you dont just collect all the avalaible facts relevant to the argument or case you want to make, but you also collect all or most senses of a given essential term that you  use in your arguments and construct an argument using each different sense of the same term (if it is necessary).

Edited Tuesday at 06:16 PM by zurew

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@zurew thank you 🫶

[bazera]

@eTorro

Yeah as other guys pointed out, you lack practice.

Couple years ago, I was offered a job as a lecturer for some technical subject because I was doing my job well. I was afraid because I lacked communication skills, or so I thought.

It turned out it was pure lack of practice issue, first couple lectures were rough, and then I realized the more prepared I was to talk about a subject, the better my communication of it was.

As you get better and better, you get more confident and your speech gets clearer because you yourself realize through trial and error points that you need to work on to improve.

So, I'd advice to seek out leadership / teaching roles and just strive to improve at your job, and you'll get better. Trust in the process.

If that's too much of a hastle for you, you can also do that solo by yourself, via writting and in front of camera.

On 16/03/2026 at 3:17 PM, eTorro said:

Why can't I express myself freely?

You tell us, what's stopping you?

[eTorro]

7 hours ago, bazera said:

You tell us, what's stopping you?

I'm incoherent. Sometimes it's easier, and sometimes words just won't come.

Murky mind? Or maybe I did not memorize enough or contemplate enough for a deeper understanding.

I'm the only one who can figure that out, and I WILL.

[Joshe]

Same here. Writing is fine but real-time conversation sucks.

Just some rough ideas I've played with:

"Articulation skill" depends on many complex things. "Domain familiarity" is just one of the factors involved in how well you can translate your understanding to speech. 

What often looks like good articulation is actually an emergent result that arises when high verbal fluency and high domain familiarity combine with a specific cognitive structure operating with specific values. lol

On Facebook, I was just watching a live stream of a fella I grew up with in my class who has apparently gone insane and is doing a walkabout in Mexico and thinks he's the devil. He talks with such verbal fluency it's mesmerizing and I'm jealous. 

Verbal fluency alone can produce the illusion of good articulation, but combine that with high domain familiarity, and we start to see what looks like great articulation. But it's not as simple as having a ton of domain familiarity either. It's also how your brain processes and stores information, which directly affects how accessible it is to be verbalized.

I don't have the cognitive aspect fully figured out but I think one of the biggest things that handicaps people is non-linear perception/processing. More linear/sequential thinkers will have an easier time translating their understanding because how it is processed in sequence.

I think people such as myself will just never be able to articulate very well across the board due structural contraints of the mind. I could learn to articulate well on specific topics, but it wouldn't transfer over to other domains.

If I wanted to improve, I'd zoom in on the specific topic, drill specific vocabulary and phrases, collect canned phrases for various situations, transitions, etc, and simply practice verbalizing.

But trying to get good at articulation in general seems incompatible with my hardware. I could make some small gains, and I'm not saying it's impossible to make a lot, but I'm pretty sure it would require never-ending maintenance on a scale that wouldn't make sense.

There's a dude on Youtube who has some good ideas about surface lexicon vs deep lexicon. 

[eTorro]

18 hours ago, Joshe said:

There's a dude on Youtube who has some good ideas about surface lexicon vs deep lexicon. 

But can't you give us a link, please?

[Joshe]

7 minutes ago, eTorro said:

But can't you give us a link, please?

lol, he's the first video that shows up when you search YT for "surface lexicon vs deep lexicon". If not, it's this dude:

Not sure about that particular video though. If not, you should be able to search his channel for "lexicon" to find it. 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Do you feel you have a solid understanding of the ideas you are looking to present?

Like, know them totally in-and-out?

[eTorro]

On 3/20/2026 at 10:18 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Do you feel you have a solid understanding of the ideas you are looking to present?

Yes, but the issue is that I do not memorize concepts.

That said, when I'm making a YouTube video or film for the sake of testing my skills, words come up, but a deep insecurity lies beneath, in the sense that I'm not a master of the skill. Even though I do it right, I don't feel like I'm mastering it, and I'm confident in it. Why?

[Judy2]

On 16/03/2026 at 0:17 PM, eTorro said:

Hello.

I see people on TV everywhere. They seem highly developed intellectually. They appear intellectually bright.

They can express themselves concisely. You can easily understand what they said.

Why can't I do the same? Why can't I express myself freely?

Why can they do it so easily while I cannot?

I feel like my mind is murky.

What would solve this issue for me? What do I need to do to achieve that level of articulating understanding?

Thanks, guys. Thanks in advance.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

i haven't read the other suggestions yet, but i would say it comes down to practice, and, crucially, letting yourself express freely. 

a little anecdote is that my language-learning progress (in French and Italian) improved significantly once i allowed myself to talk and write EXPECTING to make mistakes. i believe it could be similar with learning to express yourself more concisely in your own mother tongue. up until i did this, the things i was capable of doing and saying correctly were being inhibited by my fear of making mistakes, so even the things i could express correctly weren't being practised as much - conversely, if you allow yourself to make mistakes, you can really internalise (and even start to recognise) the things you are already good at AND make mistakes that lead to questions ("let me look that up in a dictionary"/"let me research that") and ultimately solutions. = progress. 

related to this issue specifically, i would also just begin by simply articulating your own mental process (images, words) and laying these out step by step for the people you are trying to communicate with. this is how i would approach teaching/tutoring most of the time: to simply describe to the students what steps my own brain goes through when tackling a certain issue, whether that's grammar or anything else. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, eTorro said:

 Even though I do it right, I don't feel like I'm mastering it, and I'm confident in it. Why?

This feels like it could be getting to the heart of it. You might know the topics in and out but something else is interfering? 

Imposter syndrome? Unworthiness? Some ideas. 

I suffered from the above for years.

[Oyashiro]

On 3/16/2026 at 9:27 AM, Cred said:

Autistic people take longer to process. Talking requires a lot of quick decisions. This is hard for someone who is autistic since they need to contemplate everything deeply.

This is why I invest almost all of my skill points into writing and rarely invest in speech.

[Joshe]

5 hours ago, eTorro said:

Yes, but the issue is that I do not memorize concepts.

That said, when I'm making a YouTube video or film for the sake of testing my skills, words come up, but a deep insecurity lies beneath, in the sense that I'm not a master of the skill. Even though I do it right, I don't feel like I'm mastering it, and I'm confident in it. Why?

It's because your cognition. I have the same thing. Even if I have a deep understanding of something, that understanding is not stored as something I can easily show due to the storage format. If you asked me about this topic in a conversation, the process of me trying to serialize my understanding for speech would make it look like I don't know jack shit or just making stuff. Someone with a fraction of my understanding on the topic could easily come across as more knowledgeable just because their fraction is stored differently.

But when I sit down to write it out, the depth of understanding deepens fast because I have time to connect and process all the relevant nodes in the network. But even after bringing order to it in writing, my mind just discards the linear scaffolding the writing produced because it doesn't value retaining it. I might value it, but my mind don't. This is why I mentioned "values" earlier. 

The only way for me to verbalize my understanding would be to verbally drill the specific points, like memorizing a fucking poem or something, and I just can't be bothered with that. 

And you're right, if you have the cognitive architecture I'm describing and want to speak with some authority on a topic, it's very difficult. You could do it, but I think you need to truly understand the architecture. 

To get a sense of the architecture I'm trying to describe, check out this video:

Don't view that video from the MBTI lens. Separate the concept from the MBTI model. Mainly look at the cognition of the INTJ and see if that seems like what is going on. 

Also: 

If you have this type of cognition, you will have to learn to suspend in when it's time to communicate.