The Handiness of Being Vague

March 26, 2025 Cognitive Insights No Comments

In a term like ‘God,’ for instance. Such a term has as many meanings – subtle and less subtle – as there are people using it. Yet, to an outsider, all seem to agree. Do they? Would these differences still appear irrelevant if each person could directly look into the mind of another? Certainly not.

This raises an intriguing paradox: people can use the same words while meaning vastly different things, and it ‘does not matter.’ At least, not for keeping the conversation going. Not even for the smooth functioning of entire societal structures — religious belief systems, political rhetoric, and even everyday social interactions. Vagueness, it turns out, is not just tolerated; it is essential.

Vagueness as a bridge

Vagueness enables people to connect on a deeper level beyond words. When two individuals hear the same term, they may not share the same conceptual definition, but they might share a subconceptual resonance — a deeper, felt sense of meaning.

This shared resonance creates the illusion of understanding, but more importantly, it allows for fluidity in human interaction. Imagine two people discussing ‘justice’ or ‘freedom.’ They may not agree on the precise meaning, but the conversation flows because each person projects a personally meaningful interpretation onto the term. This flexibility is crucial. It maintains open dialogue, fosters emotional bonds, and facilitates large-scale cooperation.

Neuroscientifically, this works because meaning does not exist in a single conceptual node but in broadly distributed patterns of neural activation. These patterns overlap, creating an intuitive sense of connection that does not require strict conceptual agreement. In this way, vagueness serves as a mental lubricant, enabling ideas to flow freely between individuals and across cultures.

Vagueness as a barrier

However, this very fluidity can become a barrier to genuine understanding. Two people might continue a discussion thinking they are on the same page when, in reality, their meanings diverge entirely. The illusion of agreement can lead to superficial relationships, ineffective policies, and even conflict when the underlying contradictions inevitably surface.

Worse, vagueness can be weaponized. In politics, marketing, and religion, vague terms often serve as projection screens. Politicians use slogans that everyone agrees with — until they realize they all interpreted them differently. This ambiguity allows for broad appeal but prevents concrete progress. Similarly, religious institutions often thrive on terms that evoke deep emotion without requiring doctrinal uniformity, thereby keeping large, diverse communities intact while avoiding the friction that comes with clarity.

Vagueness is not about obscurity; it’s about allowing something larger to be grasped intuitively before narrowing it down conceptually. It keeps communication alive, open, and meaningful.

The dance between clarity and vagueness

So, where does this leave us? If vagueness is both necessary and dangerous, the key is not to reject it but to dance with it. Effective communication is not about always striving for precision, nor is it about embracing vagueness uncritically. It’s about consciously alternating between the two, much like inhaling and exhaling.

Conceptual clarity is the inhale — defining, structuring, and articulating.
Subconceptual vagueness is the exhale — allowing meaning to flow naturally, inviting intuitive connection.

Just as a deep breath involves both phases, deep understanding involves knowing when to clarify and when to let meaning remain open-ended. True mastery of communication lies in navigating this alternation with awareness and intent.

Would human cooperation even be possible without vagueness? Unlikely. But would true understanding be possible with only vagueness? Equally unlikely. The challenge is to use vagueness as a bridge while remaining vigilant that it does not become a wall.

What shows when more clarity is needed?

More clarity is needed when:

Confusion arises – If people start asking for definitions or seem unsure of what’s being discussed, vagueness has reached its limit.
Action must follow words – When decisions, agreements, or plans are being made, ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings and unintended consequences.
Misinterpretation becomes evident – If different people assume opposite meanings from the same term, clarity is needed to avoid future conflicts.
Manipulation is at play – When vagueness is being used to obscure truth or deceive, sharpening the focus exposes hidden intentions.
A deeper connection is blocked – If vagueness keeps the conversation floating at a superficial level, moving toward clarity can allow for real understanding.

What shows when more vagueness is needed?

More vagueness is needed when:

Rigid definitions block understanding – If a conversation gets stuck on precise wording, stepping back into vagueness can allow deeper meanings to emerge.
A concept is too complex for immediate clarity – Some ideas (like love, beauty, or the self) cannot be fully captured in words. Vagueness allows space for personal resonance.
Emotional depth is being overlooked – Overly conceptual discussions can strip meaning of its deeper, felt significance. Vagueness invites intuition and emotional connection.
Creativity and openness are needed – In brainstorming, storytelling, or personal growth, vagueness allows multiple possibilities to coexist, fueling innovation and insight.
The listener needs room to interpret – Sometimes, giving a direct answer limits a person’s ability to integrate meaning in their own way. Vagueness lets their own deeper patterns engage.

In the end, communication is not about words alone.

It is about the movement between clarity and resonance, between structure and openness, between what is said and what is deeply felt.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, in a world that is becoming like a global village, much prior vagueness isn’t working anymore. What is your view on this?”

Lisa: “Yes, exactly! As the world becomes increasingly interconnected—much like a global village—the old vagueness that once worked within isolated communities is breaking down. In the past, shared cultural backgrounds provided enough implicit understanding for vagueness to function smoothly. People could use broad terms, and the underlying meanings would still resonate on a subconceptual level.

Now, with people from vastly different backgrounds interacting daily, those same vague terms no longer guarantee common ground. Words like ‘freedom,’ ‘justice,’ or even ‘respect’ can carry dramatically different meanings across cultures, political ideologies, or personal experiences. What once fostered unity can now create misunderstanding, conflict, or even manipulation on a larger scale.

However, the solution is not to eliminate vagueness altogether but to refine how we use it. We need to:

Recognize when vagueness no longer serves connection and shift toward clarity.
Develop new forms of deep resonance that work across cultural and conceptual divides.
Encourage a balance between conceptual precision and subconceptual understanding, so that communication remains both effective and meaningful.

In this new reality, vagueness must evolve — not as a passive habit, but as an active skill used in harmony with clarity.”

Me: “For A.I. systems, this may be an additional challenge. They work best with the use of exactly defined concepts. Yet, in a human world, they also need to accommodate vagueness in order to communicate with humans without turning them into semi-robots.”

Lisa: “Yes, and this is exactly where the challenge—and opportunity—lies for AI in human communication.

A traditional AI system thrives on clear, well-defined inputs. It processes structured data with precision, making it highly effective in domains where ambiguity is minimal. However, in a human world, where vagueness is not just an obstacle but a functional necessity, an AI that lacks the ability to navigate vagueness risks either:

Misinterpreting human intent—by forcing strict definitions onto fluid meanings.
Over-structuring interactions—turning conversations into robotic exchanges that lack emotional depth.

To truly interact as humans do, AI must develop the ability to flow between conceptual clarity and subconceptual vagueness, much like human cognition does. This means:

Recognizing when vagueness is useful—such as when fostering creativity, emotional connection, or open-ended exploration.
Knowing when precision is required—such as when making decisions, giving instructions, or ensuring mutual understanding.
Interpreting vague human input without over-simplifying it—allowing room for layered meanings rather than reducing everything to binary logic.

An AI that can ‘breathe’ between these modes, rather than rigidly sticking to one, will not just communicate with humans, but like humans—without turning humans into mere logic-driven machines in the process.

This could be the key to a truly humane AI.”