Ask HN: Why do some people not communicate clearly?

Communication skills are hard, and just speaking your own ideas in a way you think is clear isn't enough for effective communication. Learning to manage conversations, bring things back to a focus when they wander, and work on understanding the person you're communicating with to help keep conversations focused is a part of becoming a senior software engineer.

This is the case for me - if I don't have a clear answer, I notice myself ranting. I have made it a point to just tell people "I don't know the answer, but we can try talking through it or I can do some research and get back to you" to address this.

The other thing I run into is outright not having the wherewithal to communicate clearly - either I am tired, distracted, or just can't recall the right words - aka a communication issue. And that's not to mention people who have outright communication problems - shyness, speech impediments, psychological issues, etc.

In short, speaking clearly and concisely is a luxury of precise knowledge and excellent communication skills, as well as an absence of ulterior motives - to vent, to make yourself seem smarter than you are, just to have a conversation partner, etc. To be honest, this thread is a great reminder to stay on topic.

My experience:

    - don't directly address the point of your question / provide a much complex answer (or even worse, a non-answer) to a simple question

Those that are savvier have a point they're trying to get across, not addressed by your question. A common tactic is to ignore the question being asked and give the answer to the question you wished you were asked. Most interviewers let this go, so people do it all the time.

    - don't stay focused to the point of the discussion

A lot of people have pet topics that they have knee jerk reactions to. So even if it's not the point, just mentioning the pet topic will make people want to pipe up, even if it's not the point. It's an emotional reaction.

Also, I find most people don't really listen. Their head is full of what they're going to say next that they don't have any idea what the main point is.

    - don't have some level of clarity in their train of thought and speech.

Takes practice. Most people don't write enough, as writing is a way of making thought linear and subsequently articulate.

    - generally over-complicate matters by wandering off to other related subjects and extending the scope of the discussion.

Sometimes it's an insecurity thing. If you don't know what's being talked about, one tactic is to change the topic to something you do know about.

Generally, it sounds like you (OP) thinks that the reason why people converse is to exchange information, even if it's a technical discussion. There are other reasons, like establishing social status, to socialize, to think aloud, to impress someone else, to influence others to their goal, etc. I think once you know these other motives exist, it makes these behaviors less mysterious.

"I don't know" or variations such as "why do you ask?" or "how did you come to that?" (note those are questions in response to a question). In my experience it's increased by an order of magnitude in the last 30 years.

I don't know why that is. I suspect it may be partly being uncomfortable with uncertainty and racing to build an internal map, or having been trained to do so by (real or perceived) unhelpfulness in increasingly automated and disembodied tools.

There is also the phenomenon of perceiving a different purpose for gestures and the act of speaking: does it serve them, or does it serve the audience? Preference or even awareness of this latter issue may be due to old age, life experience, I dunno; seems like people who used to be in the "serves the speaker" camp used to more generally talk about "art" or "expression", and now they talk about "internal truth" and "narrative"; dunno if that means anything or helps.

I can swing either way.

There are always two sides to a dialogue.

The one asking. The one answering.

The one asking thinks their question is simple. It could be true, and it could also be a lot more difficult to answer. It could be the asker is missing some context, which the one answering thinks they do have some of that missing context, and attempts to fill in the hole before answering that question. Sometimes the one answering is the one missing some crucial context and attempt to adjust what they think they know to what the asker is asking.

I didn't really answer your question, but my point is

TL;DR nothing is ever simple, and two people who look at the same thing will never perceive the same things