And abstractness is the cause.

The more people learn more about something, the more they naturally start to think about it abstractly.

But even more surprising is the type of language that increased investment. After all, concrete language increases understanding, boosts memorability, and has a host of other benefits. So given all that, why did less concrete (more abstract) language increase funding?

The answer, it turns out, has to do with what concrete language communicates about potential. As we’ve discussed, concrete language often relates to observable aspects of items, actions, and events. Things that exist in the here and now that we can see,

touch, or feel.

Consequently, concrete language is often quite helpful. It can help people visualize what is

being said and understand complex topics. In the context of pitch language, for example, using concrete language should help potential investors understand what a company does and the immediate problems that it hopes to solve.

But when deciding whether to fund a startup, understanding isn’t the main thing investors are looking for. They’re not just trying to comprehend a business, they’re trying to forecast its

potential—not just whether it will survive but whether or not it will flourish. How likely is this business to grow in the future? Not just a little, but a lot? How easy will it be to scale up?

Rather than focusing on one niche, abstract language makes the market seem widespread. And given that larger growth potential, a company seems like a much more promising investment.

Consequently, whether it’s better to use concrete or abstract language depends on the outcome we’re trying to achieve. Want to help people understand a complex idea, feel heard, or remember what was said? Using concrete language is going to be more effective.

But if we want people to think our idea has potential, or that we’re a forward-thinking visionary, abstract language is more effective.

Abstract language also suggests that communicators are more powerful and would be better managers or leaders. Using abstract language to describe everyday activities (e.g., describing ignoring someone as “showing dislike” rather than “not saying hello”) makes people seem more focused on the big picture, and thus more powerful, dominant, and in control. Similarly, hearing someone describe a product more abstractly (i.e., “nutritious” rather than “containing lots of vitamins”) made them seem more fit to be a manager or leader.

Employees whose linguistic style was more similar to their coworkers’ were three times more likely to be promoted. They received better performance evaluations and higher bonuses…

Indeed, people with a dissimilar linguistic style weren’t so fortunate. They were four times more likely to be fired…

Adaptability, in turn, helped explain success.