The Interpreter’s Paradox

We’ve all seen the cinematic trope: two high-stakes players speaking different languages, mediated by an interpreter. Person A delivers a brief statement; the interpreter matches the length. Person B launches into a two-minute, dramatic-sounding monologue, and the interpreter responds with just two words. The audience laughs because this level of efficiency is funny.

But in the world of technical communication, this “shortening” is often viewed with suspicion. As an editor and comms professional, you are often that interpreter. To make a piece of content actionable, you have to break it down. Yet, there is a pervasive fear among subject matter experts that this process is “dumbing things down.”

A large volume of data is neither the only nor the best way to demonstrate truth.

In institutional writing, the belief is that complexity is a proxy for rigor. But if the intended audience cannot navigate the technical density, the document has failed its primary mission. Ethan Bernstein describes this as the “Transparency Trap”—the paradox where more information actually leads to less understanding. In communications and editing, we see this when experts use ‘accuracy’ as a shield, burying the lead in a mountain of nuance.

True transparency isn’t about the volume of information provided; it’s about how accessible the truth is. Obscure prose doesn’t protect the facts; it hides them, creating a sort of Narrative Debt. A technically accurate document filled with expert-to-expert terminology may sound impressive, but if it is unintelligible to the decision-makers, it becomes a liability—leading to stakeholder confusion, misaligned policy, and a loss of trust.

The expert focuses on the ‘What’ of the maze;
The communicator/editor ensures the ‘Why’ reaches the exit.

My role as a comms and editing “interpreter” is to prevent this debt from accumulating. It isn’t about oversimplification; it’s about protecting the Narrative Architecture by removing the friction of specialized registers. This process helps to find the human frequency.

In the end, clarity is not a concession you give to the uninformed. It is a strategic choice to ensure that the “Why” is never sacrificed to the “What.” It is remembering that an expert knows how to build the maze; an editor/comms professional knows how to lead the audience through it.

Bernstein, E. “The Transparency Trap.” Harvard Business Review, October 2014.
(Original research: Bernstein, E. S. (2012). “The Transparency Trap: Mechanisms for Facilitating Outcomes in Strategic Settings.” Administrative Science Quarterly.)