Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques - 285. Think Inside the Box: How Constraints Spark Creativity and Communication

Episode Date: May 4, 2026

The secret to better communication isn’t adding more—it’s knowing what to leave out.Communication isn’t clearer when you say more — it’s clearer when you say less. As David Epstein puts it, we’re wired to keep adding, even when “the better solution is often what you take away.” The challenge isn’t having ideas; it’s choosing which one actually matters.Epstein is an author and investigative journalist known for his New York Times bestseller Range. In his latest book, Inside the Box, he explores how constraints can sharpen creativity and elevate thinking, a theme that reflects his broader work at the intersection of psychology, performance, and innovation. “If you assume someone will only remember one thing,” he explains, “decide what that is before you start talking.” That simple constraint forces clarity — and changes how we communicate entirely.In this episode of Think Fast Talk Smart, Epstein and host Matt Abrahams unpack why limits make us better communicators and thinkers. From the dangers of “featuritis” to the creative breakthroughs sparked by restriction, they explore how blocking familiar paths leads to more original ideas and communication. To listen to the extended Deep Thinks version of this episode, please visit FasterSmarter.io/premium.Episode Reference Links:David EpsteinDavid’s Book: Inside the BoxEp.108 All In: How Improv Helps You Show Up and Communicate Well Connect:Premium Signup >>>> Think Fast Talk Smart PremiumEmail Questions & Feedback >>> [e-mail] Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedInChapters:(00:00) - Introduction (02:08) - Featuritis & Overload (03:47) - Constraints & Creativity (07:57) - Chunking Information (09:18) - Familiarity & Innovation (10:20) - Clarifying Through Feedback (12:51) - Defining the Problem (14:13) - Precluding Default Approaches (15:53) - The Final Three Questions (22:53) - Conclusion ********Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.Strawberry.me. Get 50% off your first coaching session today at Strawberry.me/smart

Hi, Matt here. Ever struggle at a networking event? Well, then our June newsletter is just for you. You can learn best practices for better networking and about all the exciting things we're doing. Check out our June newsletter. Available now on LinkedIn and on FasterSmarter.io under resources, now a word from our sponsors. Their support covers the cost of production, allowing us to bring you this episode free of charge. Strawberry.me makes coaching more accessible, affordable, and global, connecting you with a coach who's the right fit for you. I've had the privilege of working with some truly great coaches. And I've also spent many years coaching others. And I can tell you firsthand, coaching makes a real difference. The challenge is that coaching has often felt out of reach for a lot of people. It can be expensive, difficult to access, or something people assume is only for senior executives.

That's why I really appreciate what strawberry.me is doing. Growth shouldn't depend on whether you happen to have access to the right mentor or organization. Everyone deserves support in becoming more effective, more thoughtful, and more confident in how they show up. Visit strawberry.comme slash smart and take 50% off your first session. Make sure you let them know Matt sent you. That's strawberry.combe slash smart. And now back to our conversation. Constraints catalyze communication.

My name's Matt Abrams, and I teach strategic communication at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Welcome to Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast. Today I look forward to chatting with David Epstein. David is a science writer and investigative journalist best known for his number one New York Times bestseller, Range, and the sports team. In his latest book, Inside the Box, How Constraints Make Us Better, he explores the counterintuitive cognitive science showing that the limits we have free us up to be more creative.

Well, welcome, David. Thanks for being here. I really look forward to learning from you today. It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me. Okay. Shall we get started? Let's do it.

In reading Inside the Box, I really resonated with when you talk about the Christmas tree effect or featureitis. Can you share what these ideas mean? And how can we prevent when we communicate and our core ideas from being, drowned in just the unnecessary complexity of so many of the things we end up communicating about. That's a great question because those are phrases that come from designers primarily featureitis and the Christmas tree effect that essentially mean the same thing, adding more. So featureitis, like you get carried away by always adding features to things. The Christmas tree effect is similar,

meaning you just keep putting ornaments on the tree over and over and over. And humans have a hardwired, what's called additive bias to always solve problems. by putting more and more on in a related bias, the flip side called subtractive neglect bias. We tend to overlook solutions that involve taking things away. And I think when it comes to communication, and I've been guilty of this for sure, I'm curious about a lot of things, and I have a desire to impart everything that I think is interesting to someone. And I think that shows in my first book, which did well, but in retrospect, going back, that there are things in here that I would take out, looking at it now. So I feel like,

an antidote to featureitis when it comes to communication would be something like assuming the other person is going to forget everything except one thing you said. Now decide what that one thing is before you're opening your mouth. That doesn't mean you can't add other things, but that one thing you want to make sure that you get across. And I think that's an approach like many good constraints do can help you clarify priorities when you're trying to communicate clearly. Yeah.

One of the things that I coach, the people I coach in the story. students I teach is to really think of the bottom line first before you speak. And I like how you said, what's the most important thing? And then build the message from there rather than thinking of everything you have to say and hoping that some of it sticks. Growing up, one of my favorite books as a kid was green eggs and ham. I love Dr. Seuss. Can you tell the story of Dr. Seuss, Theodore Gazelle, and the cat in the hat, and how that was written with vocabulary restriction in mind and how can that type of restriction lead to new and novel input and output? And have you thought about that in the way you do your communication and perhaps all of us

could do our communication? So Dr. Seuss, we take for granted now that there's a lot of interesting children's literature, but at the time he was working, it was boring. I went back and read some of the stuff and it was just super literal stuff, very pedantic. And Dr. Seuss was asked to create a children's book using only 200 words from a kid's vocabulary list that he was given. And so what does he do? First, he starts complaining to his wife because he looks through and he says there's basically no adjectives. And in fine Sousian form, he compares it to trying to make a strudel without any strudels, which I love because it's like he was

the same person in private as he was in public. But then he gets exasperated and decides he's just going to take the first two rhyming words on the list and write a book around them. And the first two rhyming words are cat and hat. And the rest is history. But that restriction forced him to experiment with rhythm because he couldn't experiment with vocabulary. And after he did that, this famous publisher bet him that he couldn't do it again using only 50 words. And he did that for green eggs and ham where he had to experiment with rhythm even more because what can you do with 50 words? And it became this rollicking tale, of course, that spawned imitators. And he and changed children's literature and gave rise to psychological effect known as the green eggs

and ham effect, which is the idea that the quickest path to creativity is by blocking familiar solutions. So our brains are actually lazy. You may think your brain is made for thinking, but it's actually made for preventing you from having to think whenever possible because thinking is energetically costly. And so if you're given complete freedom, you'll just go down what cognitive scientists call the path of least resistance. You'll just do the thing that feels convenient or that you've done before. And so the best way to become creative or have new ideas is to take that away. So in a communication perspective, one thing I would think of is, let's say you're going into a client meeting or something and you say, if we were not allowed to pitch or recommend or say the

usual thing, what would we do instead? And I think that can be a fruitful thought exercise for thinking of what are other ways we could frame this or what are other ways we could propose this or maybe even directly in the communication medium, if we were not allowed to communicate this using PowerPoint slides or whatever it is that we're used to, how would we do it? And I'm not saying you necessarily have to do that, but it tends to be a very generative exercise in figuring out what is the core of this thing and what are ways to communicate it. I love the backstory on Dr. Seuss's initial successes and this idea of putting constraints into communication to get you to think differently about it. I have a colleague who, when they do an activity in class and they're teaching

conflict resolution, they ask the students to have a conflict. They create a simulated conflict. And the students can only ask questions. They can't make declarations. And you can see how it would change the dynamic, right? And again, she's not advocating that every conflict should be resolved through questioning exclusively, but it changes your mindset and it changes how you listen. When I'm in my mode as a journalist, I think I'm legitimately a better person because it's not that I'm only asking questions, but it's that I go into every conversation with the mindset of trying to understand not to be right. And that frame just makes so much difference in how the conversation goes. Yeah, absolutely. And I think the challenge for all of us, you first have to recognize the habits and patterns heuristics that you have to then begin to challenge. them and say, okay, now we're not going to do this. But I think there are a lot of possibilities and another reframe you could use go into any situation as a journalist. What would a journalist

do here could be really helpful? What is chunking and how can it help us in our communication? Chunking is in the sense that psychologists use it means essentially the grouping together of information. So maybe I can give you an example. It would be an easy way to explain the phenomenon. If I said 20 random words to you right now and ask you to repeat them back, you'd have trouble doing that. But if I gave you 20 words in a sentence, you may well be able to repeat that back to me, or at least most of it. And they could be the same 20 words, just in the first case mixed up. But it will make your memory seem so much better because you've learned a system of grammar and groups and phrases of words that are chunked or collected into groups in your brain. So you're not actually remembering

20 different things. You're remembering just a few different chunks that fit together in some coherent scheme. And that's how humans are able to remember and access as much information as we can because we chunk information into related, meaningful groups and then into these broader networks or templates of knowledge. So how does this lead to novelty? How does it lead to creativity and new ideas when you're attaching to previously existing old information? Our older ideas or familiar ideas are actually the jumping off point for new ideas typically. in fact, as I was doing the research for the book, one of the things I learned was that the idea that creativity and originality are synonymous was not even a thing until the late 18th century. And this group of people that wanted to say, not everything is logical.

Like creative inspiration comes in these lightning strikes out of the blue and there's no rhyme or reason to it. And that's not really true. It actually typically comes from modifying ideas that are already very familiar. And I think if we're thinking about this in a communication, frame, one of the important things is that if you want to get people to come along with creative or radical ideas, a really important thing you have to do is ground it in things that are very familiar to them and then layer the more radical thing on top of it so that this vision of change also comes along with it an embedded vision of continuity.

Demonstrating consistency and showing how what you're talking about is familiar, it makes it easier for people to one, buy into it and to follow through. anybody listening to the show knows that I am a huge advocate for frameworks and structure and communication for the very reasons you've just talked about. They allow us to understand and predict what's coming so we can dedicate and focus more information on it. We're not good at remembering just list after list item after item. When you package it in a structure like problem, solution, benefit, past, present, future, all the sudden, that chunking allows us to have a framework that we can attach to and it makes it more memorable. So I definitely appreciate you

defining that term that helps us see something that we often talk about on the show. In your book, you talk about the podcast, This American Life, one of my favorite shows. Can you share with us what you learned from your interviewing of them? I did a piece for This American Life and I had never written anything for radio or narrative podcast essentially. And this was like a 35 minute piece that I'm writing. I know nothing about what I'm doing. And I'm a science. writer. So I was used to putting a lot of technical information in articles, or reasonably technical. And that's okay when people can stop and reread it or slow down. Not so okay when it's flying by them in audio. And so this American life had this system where you do these read-throughs where it's like Ira Glass sitting there holding a stopwatch.

You're reading the narration. Your producer hits play when you want to play some interview audio. And then people say what confused them. They don't tell you how to solve it. You have to do something. You can't ignore, but they don't tell you how. And then you keep redoing that. And every time you you do it, there'd be at least one new person who had never heard it before every time. And that person gets to say what confused them. And then you just do that over and over until the new person comes in and says, nothing confused me. I got everything. And so the process titrated out confusion and it's a brutal process, but the greatest editing process I've ever been through because it just relentlessly exposes all the assumptions you're making about

things that you know really well and that you've even lost track of the fact that not everybody knows this stuff. And even though I'm sensitive to that as a professional science communicator, I'm thinking about that all the time. And yet, there's still stuff that just becomes so routine or so obvious to you once you know about it, but it's not obvious to people who don't. So it's a great system in that way that people can really lose track of what the other party doesn't understand if they start taking for granted the meaning of things in their world. the American Life story highlights the importance of making sure your audience understands. But what I really like about it is the question they asked. They said, what is confusing?

Many of us will say, did you understand everything? Were things clear, et cetera? But when you put it in, hey, what was confusing? That helps people be more specific. And I really like that they don't then give suggestions for how to make it less confusing. They leave that to you. So that I think is where that creativity comes in. And I think you learn more when you're not given direction on how to fix it. And I'm really going to take this lesson to heart as a parent, as a teacher, as a coach, because often it's my reaction to then immediately give, here's what I think you could do to fix it. I thought it was fantastic because I just wrote a book obviously about useful constraints, but there is clearly such thing as too much constraint, right? If you're telling someone what they have to do and how they have to do it,

If the person says there's no room for me to surprise myself, then it's too much constraint. But in this case, it really impressed upon me the power of having someone define the problem for you really well. And instantly, you're fired up about solutions. I'd say, I just did not understand this beat in the story, whatever was. And if they could define it really well, it feels very empowering for then doing the problem solving. I see the problem clearly. In many cases, I think a clear definition of the problem is the best tool for getting it solved. Right. It helps to still that down. Very good. Another term I need you to define for our listeners, what is precluding and how does it work? Yeah, precluding is in this context,

blocking the most familiar solutions. So in the history of innovation, preclude constraints are basically ever present, where either by someone's choice, in artistic innovation, it was often the case that people did this by choice in order to innovate. In technological innovation, in many cases it was more necessity, but that a preclude constraint means it precludes the previous solution. It blocks the path that has been taken most regularly. And once that's gone, it's maybe the most generative creative prompt you can possibly have. The thing you're used to, the thing everyone's always done, you're not allowed to do it. So what now? How can you get this done? It kind of reminded me actually.

One of the early readers of the book was a guy named Ed Hoffman, who was the first chief knowledge officer at NASA is basically like the head psychologist. He stopped partway through and said, I got to tell you about this mission called Elcross where the team ended up with half the time in budget they expected.

And so what did they do? First, they complained. And then they said, well, if we were going to get this done anyway, how would we do it? And it led them to repurpose things. So they took imaging equipment from army tanks and engine temperature sensors from NASCAR and created a probe that

confirmed water on the moon. It was incredibly innovative and it led to other missions where they realized they could repurpose lots of technology, but they just never would have done this if they hadn't been forced off of the convenient path, basically. And we can challenge ourselves to do that. We don't have to have some external thing or people tell us that. We can say, what if this weren't possible or this were taken away so we can actually leverage this as a tool ourselves. We'll be right back to finish our conversation. But first, a quick word from one of our sponsors. Their support allows us to bring you this show free of charge. Think about the last time you walked into a big meeting, a presentation or podcast recording, and wish your key points could

stay with you without losing eye contact or your train of thought. That's exactly what Even Realities was built for. Even G2 are productivity smart glasses designed to keep real-time support right in view. With teleprompting, conversation support, AI assistance, and the real-time translation is remarkable. Live translation across more than 35 languages right in front of your eyes. And unlike most smart glasses, they're designed to look and feel like premium eyewear with no camera and a lightweight design you can wear all day. To learn more about EvenG2, go to Evenrealities.com. And for our listeners, use promo code Think Fast at Even Realties.com to get 10% off even ring one and or the even ring clip when you add them to your even ring G2 order.

Before we end, I like to ask everybody three questions when I make up just for you and two I've been asking everybody I've interviewed in the past. Are you up for that? Absolutely. All right. I'm going to give you a constraint. If you were to give our listeners one boundary that could help them in their communication, what would that advice be? Make the other person's argument first. I realize there's no rule that applies to every situation, but I found this, when I critiqued Malcolm Gladwell pretty stridently in my first book, and we ended up, we first met for a public debate, and then we became really good friends. So this was a very generative relationship based on disagreement. One of the things that really helped was at that initial debate,

we decided to start, he and I together, by stating what we thought the other person's argument was. and I think one that gave you some first empathy for the other person's argument, but it also gave the other person a chance to decide if they were actually being misunderstood. So you both had an understanding of if the other person heard you and then you could know what you were talking about

when you were having this discussion. And so because of that, he and I then became running buddies and all this stuff. I started taking that forward to other situations where I thought I might have a different perspective than someone to start off, even if it's just to myself. Like, that was a formal debate with him. But even to myself, what do I think the other person's point of view is?

And I will, if I think it's appropriate, try to work that in early in a conversation. So what I'm hearing you say is, and then you're basically fact checking in real time. And they'll correct it if you're wrong and that's useful. So I think that idea of going in with making the other person's argument first, even if it's just to yourself, is a really useful constraint to enter certain types of conversations with. I really, really like that. If nothing else, it puts you in service of the audience. and makes you focus on what's going on for them.

Question number two, who is a communicator that you admire and why? Not to be redundant here, but I do want to say it's Malcolm Gladwell because in those series of disagreements that led to us becoming good friends, he was very open-minded. So we had a debate at the same forum five years apart. And the second time around, he started saying the things that I had convinced him of. And I didn't have nearly as much professional capital the first time we met for a debate. You could have just crushed me just because of who you are.

And you're very clever. And he said, yeah, but I have the luxury of learning from my critics. And that stuck with me so much. The idea that in earnest critic, you have the luxury of learning from them instead of becoming defensive. And now I've seen that in his writing where he has decided some things that he wrote that became very famous are not right and has changed direction. And I think that's an amazing thing to do when you've been so successful with a certain

idea, because I've definitely seen the opposite of other writers. who once they become successful with an idea, they are not changing their mind, no matter the evidence. So his ability to acknowledge that and address it even directly, I think is rare and amazing, and quite frankly, became really a role model for me. That notion of there's something to be learned from the criticism and just the openness there, I think we could all learn something from. Final question for you, David. What are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication recipe?

I think identifying the type of conversation you're having, we've all probably had this issue at some point where you're saying something or someone else is saying something you're upset about and one party offers solutions. And really it's an I need to be heard conversation. And I think that can be a very upsetting disconnect for both sides. So identifying the conversation type. I think keeping in mind what psychologists call the peak end rule, which is that the way your brain remembers and experience is more or less an average. of the moment of peak intensity and the last moment. You may not be able to do much about the moment of peak intensity, but you can end on a good note.

That end moment has more weight than just an average moment. And the third, I would say, and this is more group focused, would be relatively equal conversational turn taking. So not that everyone has to have a turn in every case, but there is a body of research that I write about in the new book that shows that one of the hallmarks of teams that are good at solving problems together is that over the course of a day, for example, if they're working together, there will be relatively equal conversational turn-taking.

When I was writing about Pixar, where Ed Cap mall, the co-founder, told me that they banned Steve Jobs from certain feedback meetings, specifically because as he became this larger-than-life personality, they felt his voice would take up too much space and crowd out other people who might have a lot to add, but not be quite as eloquent. Or there's this colloquial term hippo, highest paid person's opinion where if that person speaks, everyone will start to gravitate around

them. So I think putting boundaries in place that facilitate more equal conversational turn-taking. I really appreciate the three ingredients. They're very specific and they're all science-based. Be aware of what type of conversation you're having. What's needed in this conversation? What's your role in it? Think about how they end and can you end it in a way that increases the likelihood that people will remember it and have the experience you want them to. And then to really consider the turn taking that takes place because that does impact how people feel about it and the quality of the interactions. David, this has been fantastic. In many ways, you've unconstrained my thinking and hopefully that of our listeners, even though the book was all about constraints. Thank you so much.

Good success on Inside the Box and I appreciate learning from you and having our conversation. I enjoyed this very much. Thank you. Thank you for joining us for another episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast. To learn more about constraints, please listen to Episode 108 with Dan Klein, Adam Tobin, and Patricia Ryan Madsen. This episode was produced by Catherine Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams. Our music is from Floyd Wonder, with special thanks to Podium Podcast Company. Please find us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Be sure to subscribe and rate us.

LinkedIn, TikTok, and Instagram. And check out FasterSmarter.io for deep dive videos, English language learning content, and our newsletter. Please also consider joining the Think Fast TalkSmart Learning community at FasterSmartr.io slash learning. You'll find video lessons, learning quests, discussion boards, my AI coach, and our book club. Again, that's FasterSmart.0 slash learning

to become part of the Think Fast TalkSmart Learning community. we wrap up, I just want to say thank you for listening. It really means a lot to hear how people all over the world are using these ideas in their own lives. It inspires me and the whole team that brings you this show. If you want more episodes and resources, feel free to follow, subscribe, and explore past conversations. We're grateful for your support of Think Fast Talk Smart.