Up and Down The Ladder of Abstraction
Up and Down The Ladder of Abstraction
“The rungs of a ladder are not a place to make one’s home; they are for passing by. Fortunate are those who learn this. The long road becomes short for them, and they do not waste their lives upon the steps.”—Rumi
David C. Sarnacki
With a regular ladder, we can climb up, and we can climb down. With the ladder of abstraction, we climb up and down to promote understanding in our communications, especially in court. We connect new information with existing information. We show how the concrete fits into a larger pattern. And we show how the abstract exists in concrete examples.
The ladder of abstraction illustrated in S.I. Hayakawa’s “Language in Thought and Action” (1939) placed the abstract at the top and the concrete on the bottom. His example used “Bessie the Cow.” The higher up, the more abstract the language. The lower down, the more concrete the language. For our purposes, let’s look at this simple ladder of abstraction:
| People |
| People with opportunities to change the world for the better |
| Lawyers who care |
| Michigan family law lawyers |
| Past FLS Chairs |
| Past FLS Chairs in Grand Rapids |
| Dave Sarnacki |
We have the ability to reason on multiple levels. From the ground in front of us, we can reason in concrete specific details. From a vantage point far above the ground, we can reason in the abstract big picture. Some people are more comfortable with complex terms and with comparing and contrasting. Other people are more comfortable with detailed descriptions to paint a complete picture.
Abstract terms are broad and conceptual: love, justice, power. Alone, such concepts are open to individual interpretation, and they can confuse our audience. By connecting abstract terms to details, we bring clarity to what we mean.
Concrete terms are specific and tangible: Casablanca, To Kill a Mockingbird, Citizen Kane. Alone, such specific details may generate emotional reactions without establishing a precise broader theme, and the details may overwhelm our minds.
Moving between our abstract principles and our concrete support or evidence gives us flexibility, generates interest, and aids persuasion. We can grab attention. We can keep attention. And we can make our points.
| Our Claim for Relief |
| Context |
| Specific Evidence |
When we move down the ladder of abstraction together, we begin to visualize the words being used. If you and I hear the same word and think of different images, that word is a bit higher on the ladder of abstraction. If we think of the same image, the word is a bit lower on the ladder. When too many general concepts are thrown around, our minds are processing the words without impactful movie-like images. When we visualize a specific scene, we become and remain engaged. We engage and persuade by creating mental images.
When we move up the ladder of abstraction, we share the big picture and our big ideas. First, we outline the big picture higher on the ladder. Then we detail and color that outline with specific stories lower down the ladder. When our examples and stories are on point and as tangible as possible, they become more believable. The specific stories add emotion, and the big picture adds meaning (the principal, the rule, a summary).
| WHY QUESTIONS
(for Abstract Concepts, Theories, Ideas) |
| WHAT QUESTIONS (for Moving Up & Down) |
| HOW QUESTIONS (for Concrete Specific Evidence & Examples) |
Now let’s bring the ladder of abstraction into family law, with two simple examples within the child custody context:
| Custody |
| Best interests of child |
| Primary caregiver |
| Facilitating parent-child relationship |
| Least likely to disparage: |
| Buying Mother’s Day card for child to give |
| Custody |
| Best interests of child |
| Primary caregiver |
| Moral fitness of the parties involved |
| Effect of behaviors on the child/Significant influence on functioning as a parent: |
| Affair known by the children
Verbal abuse Substance abuse problem Reckless with child’s safety Child abuse Illegal or offensive behaviors |
Notice that the ladder goes both ways. We can start with the abstract and then ground it in the concrete. We identify the broad legal principle serving as our big picture. Then we provide specific examples or evidence or cases to clarify the complex concept.
Likewise, we can start with compelling examples to grab attention and make an impact. Then we connect these specifics to the broad principle serving as the foundation for our point. We can use metaphors and analogies and stories which are understood by our audience to bridge details with ideas.
The key to using the ladder is to balance our time at the top of the ladder with our time at the bottom of the ladder. Too much of a good thing can cause overload. We need to alternate between details and principles. Command of the concrete can establish our credibility. Connecting the concrete to the principle can point in the direction of the outcome we desire. And it helps to know who our audience is and what our core message is.
To fully understand the complete picture, most of us benefit from multiple perspectives. At the bottom of the ladder, we stay grounded and move close in to see the trees. We zoom in on the concrete: look closely at details, bringing specific situations and details into sharp focus. The danger at the bottom of the ladder is that zooming in may obscure the big picture: too close to make sense, not framed by context, overlooking what’s important.
When we need to zoom in on the concrete, we wonder: What happened? How does the evidence in this case look like? Which details should we focus on? How do we know which details matter and make a difference? How is there a pattern?
At the top of the ladder, we move far out to see the forest. We zoom out on the abstract: the big picture, theories, causes, solutions, policies, logic, rules, fairness, priorities, context, patterns, principles, values. The danger at the top of the ladder is that zooming out may obscure the subtleties: nuances, details, evolving circumstances.
When we need to zoom out on the abstract, we wonder: What is the context? Why did this happen? Why is this connected? What does all this mean? What’s the larger principle or value? How does the evidence connect to the claim? Why is any relief required?
In court, both the big and small pictures matter. To find workable solutions, we need to step down to see problems close up, and we need to step up to consider patterns, root causes, principles and values, the alternatives.
Here are some tools to help you navigate the ladder of abstraction based on Andrew Dlugan’s “The Ladder of Abstraction and The Public Speaker” (Six Minutes website):
| TO MOVE UP THE LADDER
(MORE ABSTRACT) |
| Why questions (the meaning behind the facts) |
| The big picture and context |
| Patterns and relationships (connections between facts, ideas, principles) |
| Diagrams modeling processes, connections |
| Charts adding meaning to data (e.g., trends) |
| The lesson and key insights |
| Inferences moving from particular instances to generalizations |
| Summaries moving from specific experiences to useful principles, guidelines |
| Connections between specific experiences and values, ideals, principles |
| TO MOVE DOWN THE LADDER
(MORE CONCRETE) |
| “For example” |
| Sensory details (see, touch, hear, taste, smell) |
| Specific details |
| Stories, anecdotes, metaphors, similes |
| Data, statistics, case studies, other support |
| Photographs, tangible evidence, demonstrative evidence |
| Call to action (putting this into practice) |
| How questions (concrete explanations) |