Saying less is a practical discipline, not merely a virtue. It is the habit of leaving statements unmade when no specific purpose is served by making them, of declining to fill silences with explanations, of allowing what does not need to be said to remain unsaid. The discipline is small in any single instance; it is consequential across years.

The first thing it requires is the willingness to leave a question partly answered. A question that would be answered comprehensively by a person with no discipline is answered, by a disciplined person, just sufficiently. The answer is honest; it is also no broader than the question.

The second thing it requires is the willingness to be misunderstood briefly. A disciplined person speaking less may be thought, by an impatient interlocutor, to be hiding something. The misunderstanding is usually short-lived in the people whose opinions matter; the alternative (over-explaining to forestall misunderstanding) tends to produce the very visibility that the discipline was meant to avoid.

The third thing it returns is a reputation for being unsurprising. A person from whom no surprising statement is forthcoming is, after some interval, no longer pressed for surprising statements. The pressure relaxes. The interlocutors who remain are the ones who were not in it for the surprises.

· · ·

The desk values this discipline in the people it works with because the discipline tends to lower exposure naturally, without any active work on the record. The work that the desk does is then better focused: not on undoing the consequences of having spoken too much, but on the existing record itself.