Specificity

 Specificity is something that I have hankered after, I think since I was an adolescent. If words are magic (something we tend to believe as humans, according to Is That a Fish in Your Ear?), then finding the right words is arguably like casting the perfect spell. I don't remember when I learned Flaubert's concept of 'le mot juste', probably 18 or so, but I thought... YES. Flaubert was very keen while writing Madame Bovary to only use the words that were right and exact, and to avoid cliches, whilst also writing compellingly (not in the manner of someone giving a report). This results in a painstaking process of reassessment and editing, which for me is akin to distilling an ingredient down - let's say for example, ginger - until the flavour is expressed harmoniously, but not to the point where it is over-expressed. To use another example, this is apparent if you've had a burnt coffee or a tea that's over-brewed.

Specificity is not easy to achieve necessarily, but I feel that it is egalitarian in that almost anyone can make the choice to reassess and reconsider their beliefs, writing, recipes, whatever. As someone who finds social interactions and small talk challenging, specificity is a blessed relief. If I know that many people will respond to questions, make chit-chat about the weather/their children and/or pets and that many love to talk about themselves, I use these specificities to direct interactions with people I don't know well or am not particularly interested in, to achieve momentum. The conversation can progress to a more interesting topic, or slowly fade out. I am fortunate enough to be able to understand that these are not 'rules' and that some people might not respond even if I follow these prompts. 

Specific praise or criticism is so impactful... It makes such a difference to me if I receive either (or both!) of these, as they give me a 'right of reply.' If I understand the content of what was provided, that's one less datum for me to make sense of, alongside tone, context and positionality of the giver in relation to me. Human communication can be so nuanced that I for one appreciate fewer data points to consider! I have experienced people who took offense to an imagined slight in something I communicated to them based on their own hyper-sensitivity, and being disempowered by the fact that you don't even understand what you are being accused of is a terrible feeling. The task of identifying whether such an interaction occurred in bad faith, was simple misunderstanding or was the result of somebody lashing out due to personal circumstances is a complex one and one simple way to get closer to the answer is to ask: please can you give some specific examples or tell me specifically? The 'right of reply' is crucial, because I don't and won't read minds and if someone frustrates attempts to problem-solve through conflict, I will take the right of reply to barbecue them with my breath weapon lightning.

Some of the specific praise I have received, whilst much less stressful than the above, has been fascinating because it provides new insight and perspectives. I remember a colleague in a previous job telling me that she thought that I was incredibly calm, which left me speechless. Specific praise is an area in which I am trying to develop! Compliments 'in the moment' are one step in this direction, but I am also trying to use retrospective recognition much more (e.g. you tried really hard on that, that was very difficult for you but you put in so much work, etc.). In other words, if I must be a shark, perhaps I can try being a basking shark and bask a little while in the recent past from time to time, rather than surging relentlessly towards the future.