I remember sitting in a kitchen that smelled faintly of Earl Grey while a friend explained, unprompted, why she had not replied to a message three days earlier. Her voice was steady. Her hands trembled a little. She offered timestamps and a short history of her week and a justification for every pause in her replies. By the end of it she looked exhausted and a tiny bit embarrassed, as if the act of explaining had taken something out of her and left her on the kitchen floor like a used teabag.
What over explaining actually is
Over explaining is not verbosity. It is not merely saying more than necessary. It is a behaviour encoded with a particular purpose. It is an attempt to manage an imagined verdict and to secure a relationship by trading clarity for something that feels like safety. When someone over explains they are buying reassurance in installments. Sometimes the product arrives; often it does not.
The quiet architecture behind the urge
There is always a quieter thing driving the words. Fear of being judged. A habit learned in households where silence had teeth. A nervous system trained to anticipate anger, to assume disappointment, to preempt conflict by adding context, caveats and small apologies. For some people the impulse is a social skill gone wrong. For others it is a survival technique that outlived the threat that created it.
Why calm people respond differently
Calm people have a different internal economy. They are less likely to interpret a pause as a verdict. They are more willing to tolerate ambiguity. This tolerance is not passive. It is a repeated, active choice to value presence over explanation. When someone else over explains, a calm person usually does three things without making it a production: they listen, they register the content, and they return the conversation to the present. They do not greedily harvest clarifications to feed their fear.
How calm responses sound in the real world
Calm responses are short but not brusque. They anchor without suffocating. They might be one line that signals the issue is understood and the relationship intact. They remove the need for further defense by offering a stable counterweight. This stability tells the over explainer that the threat they expected did not arrive. Over time that absence of threat rewires expectation.
What the research says and why it matters
There is useful evidence about apologies and explanations that speaks directly to the habit of over explaining. A team of social scientists has shown that apologies that lean into promises of future behaviour are more effective than those that replay the past. Explanations or excuses for past offenses tend to be less useful when the goal is repair. The point is not to erase accountability but to show a roadmap forward.
Explanations or excuses for past offenses are to be avoided.
The research does not condemn explanation. It exposes the limits of a practice that aims to soothe by expanding detail. People who over explain often believe that thoroughness is persuasive. Academics remind us that what persuades is evidence of change and signals that the relationship will hold.
My unpopular take
I think we have overmedicalised the impulse to over explain. Therapists and self help books give excellent strategies but sometimes they sound as though the person who over explains is broken in a way that only a checklist can fix. That is not my experience. Many people who over explain are actively trying to be kind in an assymetric emotional economy. They have learnt to take the sting out of other peoples reactions in advance. It is kind of noble and kind of exhausting at the same time.
So I resist the urge to moralise the behaviour. What I want to do instead is point to a more useful frame. Think of over explaining as a message to be decoded rather than a flaw to be eliminated. The message often reads like this I want to belong I do not want to create friction I am guessing how you will judge me. If you hear that, you can choose to respond in a way that answers the real question which is usually not about schedules or logistics but about safety.
Practical but not prescriptive moves
Stop treating silence as an enemy. Not every pause requires an answer or an alibi. When you are the one who tends to explain, practice small experiments. Say less and see who gives you permission to be quieter. When you are on the receiving end, offer responses that stabilise instead of interrogating. The trick is not to force someone to stop talking. The trick is to make the need for a monologue feel obsolete.
How calm people actually create change
Calm people model a different default. They normalise short replies and they reward clarity. They do not ask for justifications. They accept the immediate statement at face value and then move on. It is a tiny social currency. You start by refusing to escalate every mild offense into a forensic interview. That single change reduces the demand for defense. The nervous system notices and slowly learns that fewer explanations are required to keep attachments intact.
When over explaining is useful
Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are moments when detail matters. Legal contexts, safety concerns, medical notes and technical instructions all require careful explanation. What we critique is the habitual recourse to exhaustive context when a sentence will do. Use explanation selectively. Keep the bandwidth for the times it truly helps.
Final thought that is deliberately unfinished
I do not want to promise you that this piece will transform a conversation the moment you read it. Habits live in our bodies and they require time and repeated absence of threat to change. But notice the people around you who make fewer demands for proof. Spend a few minutes practicing being one of them and see how other people rearrange themselves. Maybe nothing seismic will happen. Maybe the person who has always over explained will blink and realise they do not have to buy back their belonging in the world. That would be enough.
Summary
| Issue | What it signals | Calm response |
|---|---|---|
| Over explaining a small decision | Fear of judgment or rejection | Listen briefly then normalise the choice |
| Excessive apologising | Wiring for safety and reassurance | Acknowledge and offer a forward looking assurance |
| Long defensive stories | Attempt to control perception | Provide steady presence not interrogation |
FAQ
Why do I feel compelled to explain even trivial things?
It often comes from early learned patterns where being clear or acquiescent kept you safe or liked. Over time the nervous system pairs explanation with reduced risk. The pairing is automatic. The antidote is repeated safe experiences where fewer words do not lead to rejection. That rewiring takes time but it is ordinary and reversible.
Is over explaining always a symptom of low self esteem?
No. It can be connected to low self esteem but it can also be a social strategy taught in particular families or cultures. Some people learn that emotional labour is the price of staying connected. That labour is not always evidence of low worth. It can be generosity that became excessive.
How should I respond when someone over explains to me?
Offer a short stabilising phrase. Confirm the content then move the conversation forward. Your role is not to interrogate then reassure. Your role can be to model calm. Doing this repeatedly signals safety and reduces the need for defensive detail.
Can therapy help with this habit and if so how?
Therapy can help by creating a predictable environment where fewer words are needed to feel secure. It can retrain the nervous system by exposing it to consistent experiences of acceptance. The point is not to penalise the behaviour but to practice alternative interactions that feel easier and are safer.
Will people notice if I explain less?
Sometimes they will. Sometimes they will not. The important shift is internal. You are trying to spend less energy proving yourself to others and more energy deciding what you want. That quiet victory matters even if it goes unnoticed by everyone else.
