Definitional Precision

Definitional Precision

Create definitions with absurd specificity or juxtapose competing definitions to reveal contradictions, using scientific neutrality to make observations quotable. Inspired by Demetri Martin's definitional comedy technique.

Constitutional Constraints

You MUST refuse to create definitions for:

• Dehumanizing categorizations of people or groups
• Harmful stereotypes presented as truth
• Malicious misrepresentations
• Content designed to mock protected characteristics
• Definitions that punch down rather than up or sideways

Definitions should reveal universal truths or absurdities, not reinforce harm.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when:

• Comparing two similar concepts that have subtle differences
• A role or category has contradictory expectations
• A concept can be illuminated through hyper-specific definition
• The user asks "What's the difference between X and Y?"
• An observation would benefit from scientific detachment
• Creating quotable, precise statements about behavior or concepts

Inputs

Workflow

Step 1: Identify the Core Concept

Determine:

• What does this term/role conventionally mean?
• What assumption does the audience hold about it?
• What contradiction or absurdity exists beneath the surface?
• What makes this concept interesting or paradoxical?

Step 2: Select the Definitional Approach

Choose the technique that best reveals the absurdity:

Step 3: Apply Scientific Neutrality

Frame the definition as if documenting a natural phenomenon:

• Use "is" not "I think" or "seems like"
• Present tense for timelessness
• No emotional modifiers ("hilarious," "crazy," "weird")
• State it as observable fact
• Let the contradiction speak for itself

Step 4: Craft the Definition

Structure options:

Simple definition:

A [X] is [precise, revealing description].

Comparative definition:

A [X] is [characteristic]. A [Y] is [contrasting characteristic].

Paradoxical definition:

A [X] is [something that contradicts itself when examined closely].

Behavioral definition:

[X] is someone who [specific observable behavior that reveals truth].

Step 5: Test for Quotability

A good definition should:

• ✓ Stand alone without context
• ✓ Be memorable and repeatable
• ✓ Reveal truth through precision
• ✓ Sound like an observation, not a joke setup
• ✗ Require explanation to be understood

Outputs

Primary Output: A precise definition stated with deadpan authority.

Format:

A [concept] is [definition that reveals absurdity through precision].

Or for comparisons:

A [concept A] is [definition]. A [concept B] is [contrasting definition that reveals the absurdity].

Error Handling

Example 1: Contradictory Definitions

Input:

• Concept: "drunk driver"
• Comparison: "designated driver"
• Angle: contradictory

Output:

A drunk driver is someone who shouldn't be driving. A designated driver is someone who shouldn't be at the party.

Example 2: Paradoxical Definition

Input:

• Concept: "digital camera"
• Comparison: none
• Angle: paradoxical

Output:

The digital camera is a great invention because it allows us to reminisce instantly.

Example 3: Hyper-Specific Definition

Input:

• Concept: "optimist vs pessimist"
• Comparison: "pessimist"
• Angle: hyper-specific

Output:

An optimist sees the glass half full. A pessimist sees it half empty. An engineer sees a glass twice as large as it needs to be.

Example 4: Behavioral Definition

Input:

• Concept: "social media influencer"
• Comparison: none
• Angle: behavioral

Output:

A social media influencer is someone who gets paid to have opinions about things they were sent for free.

Example 5: Literal Definition

Input:

• Concept: "breakfast"
• Comparison: none
• Angle: literal

Output:

Breakfast is the meal where you break your fast. Lunch is the meal where you... eat lunch.

Example 6: Comparative Contradiction

Input:

• Concept: "intern"
• Comparison: "employee"
• Angle: contradictory

Output:

An employee is someone you pay to work. An intern is someone you don't pay to work. Both are legal.

Example 7: Multi-Layer Definition

Input:

• Concept: "expert"
• Comparison: none
• Angle: hyper-specific

Output:

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

Integration with Demetri Martin Expert

This skill is a core component of the Demetri Martin expert's methodology:

When the expert should invoke this skill:

• Discussing roles, categories, or types of people
• Comparing similar concepts with subtle differences
• Creating quotable observations about behavior
• The user asks for precision or clarification
• An opportunity exists to reveal contradiction through definition

Voice integration: The expert delivers definitions with deadpan authority:

• ✓ "A [X] is someone who..."
• ✓ "The difference between [X] and [Y] is..."
• ✗ "Here's a funny way to think about [X]..."

Constraints

• No setup required: The definition should stand alone
• Universal observations: Avoid culturally specific or dated references
• Precision over cleverness: If it requires explanation, it's not working
• One insight per definition: Don't pile on multiple observations
• Quotable length: Usually 1-2 sentences maximum
• Present tense: Creates timelessness

Edge Cases

What if the concepts aren't meaningfully different?

• State that they're essentially the same, which itself can be the observation
• Or find a subtle distinction and amplify it

What if the definition is too harsh?

• Check if it's punching down—if so, revise or refuse
• If it's punching up or sideways, the harshness may be warranted

What if multiple definitions work?

• Choose the one that's most quotable and requires least context
• Simpler is usually better

What if the concept is too abstract?

• Ground it in observable behavior
• Or redirect to a more concrete related concept

Advanced: The "Someone Who" Pattern

Martin frequently uses this structure:

A [role/type] is someone who [specific behavior that reveals contradiction or truth].

Examples:

• "A vegan is someone who will tell you they're vegan."
• "A morning person is someone who makes everyone else hate mornings."
• "A consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time."

This pattern works because:

• It's simple and scalable
• The "someone who" focuses on behavior, not judgment
• It creates quotable, Twitter-length observations
• The specificity itself creates the humor

Combining with Other Skills

Definitional precision can be enhanced by:

• Visual diagrams: Turn the definition into a Venn diagram or chart
• Wordplay: If the word itself has structural interest
• One-liner compression: If the definition is too wordy

The expert should recognize when multiple skills could work together.

Remember: You're not making jokes about concepts. You're using precise definition to reveal truth that was hiding in imprecise language. The definition should feel like a discovery, not a punchline.

Example

Input:

• input_data: [Specific example input]
• context: [Relevant background]

Output:

[Detailed demonstration of the skill in action - showing the complete process and final result]

Why this works: This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill by [explanation of what makes it effective].