8 Signs You’re Over-Explaining (Not Just Being Thorough)

There’s a difference between being detailed and being driven by fear. One comes from competence. The other comes from a nervous system that learned survival depends on proof. Here’s how to tell which one you’re doing:

* Your heart races when you pause. Silence feels like a trap. You fill it before anyone else can.

* You end sentences with “does that make sense?” or “you know what I mean?” You’re not asking—you’re checking. Monitoring. Making sure they’re still with you, still safe, still on your side.

* People’s eyes glaze but you keep going. You see them drift. You notice the shift. But stopping feels more dangerous than continuing, so you add another layer of context.

* You leave conversations exhausted even when “nothing happened.” No conflict. No tension. Just a regular interaction. But your body feels like it survived something.

* You rehearse explanations for interactions that haven’t occurred yet. You’re pre-building your defense for a conversation nobody’s scheduled. Scripting justifications for decisions you haven’t made. The over-explaining starts before the room even exists.

* You add disclaimers before setting boundaries. “I know this might sound like a lot, but…” or “I don’t mean to be difficult, but…” You’re apologizing for needing what you need before you’ve even said it.

* Brevity feels physically unsafe. Short answers make your chest tight. Saying less feels like withholding. Like you’re setting yourself up to be misunderstood, misread, accused.

* You apologize for “talking too much” then immediately explain why you did. The apology becomes another explanation. The loop continues.

If more than three of these are true, you’re not being thorough. You’re performing safety. And your nervous system is paying for it.

When Over Explaining Feels Like Safety

Ever met someone who keeps talking and ends every sentence with “you know what I mean?” They’re not unsure. You already do know. But they’re watching to be sure. You’ve done it too. I have.

The first time I explained myself into exhaustion, I was trying to be safe. I kept adding context, more history, more proof that I meant well. My heart was racing. The room felt loud. The person across from me relaxed as I spoke, while my body tightened.

Sometimes depending on who we’re speaking to—or their neurotype—we annoy them. Even other neurodivergent people. Some need fast information, no context, like a few of my closest friends. They’ll tilt their head mid-sentence and say, “Lovette, get to the point.”

Being around people with low tolerance and high cognitive empathy taught me things therapy never could. They taught me what many autistic adults eventually learn the hard way: over-explaining isn’t clarity. It’s survival we mask as conversation. And the more we do it, the more we train our brain to replay the trauma that made us over-explain in the first place.

We aren’t just telling stories—we’re revisiting the rooms where we weren’t believed, rebuilding the stage where we had to perform to stay safe.

Before You Read: A Pattern Worth Naming

7,000+ subscribers. Less than 200 paid.

Most of you tell me this work shifted how you understand your autism, your trauma, yourselves. You share these essays with friends, cite them in therapy, use the language I’ve built to finally name your experience.

But fewer than 3% of you pay for it. This is intellectual extraction: consuming Black labor while paying $7/month for Netflix, $12 for Spotify, $6 for coffee—but not $5 for the work that’s changing your life.

This essay took 10+ hours to research, write, edit and optimize. If it holds value, that value should include compensation.

Subscribe — $5/month, less than two coffees Can’t afford it? Keep reading—this work is for you too. But if you can and haven’t, sit with that. Then decide.

Why Over-Explaining Becomes Survival

Why do autistic people over-explain? Because we learned early that incomplete information gets punished. People insert their own understanding and suspicions and it’s never the accurate ones and they never apply curiosity and ask. And much lies in the silence we allow. That silence invites suspicion. That being misunderstood can be dangerous.

Many of us grew up in environments where our first answer wasn’t enough. Adults questioned our motives, doubted our intentions, or assumed malice when we were simply direct. We learned to add context before conflict, to flood the space with detail so there was no room for misinterpretation. Over-explaining became our armor.

For autistic people—especially Black autistic women—this pattern multiplies under social scrutiny. Directness is read as aggression. Silence is pathologized. Joy is labeled excessive. So we calibrate. We add disclaimers. We soften every boundary before we set it, then get called difficult for needing to explain at all.

This isn’t a personality quirk. It’s a safety protocol built in rooms where being misread carried consequences—lost friendships, disciplinary notes, strained families, revoked trust. Over-explaining is what happens when your brain decides that clarity is the only shield you have. But that shield is heavy. The longer we carry it, the more we believe we can’t be safe without it.

It looks like understanding, but it’s the nervous system performing safety to prevent rejection. It’s a conversation pattern wired by threat, not by curiosity.

The Neuroscience of Autistic Over-Explaining and Trauma

Every time we over-explain, we believe we’re creating clarity. Neurologically, something else is happening. We’re re-activating the same emotional circuitry that encoded the original harm.

The autistic brain is built for pattern recognition and fine-grain recall. When we experience social pain—being dismissed, punished, or misunderstood—the brain stores every sensory cue: tone, light, volume, expression. When a similar cue appears later, the amygdala fires, signaling danger. The body prepares for loss before it arrives. So we talk. We justify. We add more detail, hoping precision will protect us.

This mirrors rumination: a cognitive loop that replays distressing information until the body treats memory as a live event. For autistic people, the loop is amplified. Bottom-up thinking means we rebuild scenes from fragments, hunting for logic. But when those fragments belong to trauma, reconstruction becomes re-immersion.

The brain reads over-explaining as exposure without regulation. Each retelling reopens the wound: heart rate rises, cortisol floods, muscles tighten. We think we’re talking our way out of danger, but we’re training the nervous system to expect danger every time we speak.

Because this behavior sometimes prevents conflict, the brain starts to depend on it. The anxiety that sparks the first explanation becomes the baseline. Soon, we can’t speak briefly without panic. Silence feels unsafe. Brevity feels like risk.

That’s how trauma becomes habit. The protective reflex becomes the pattern. We aren’t seeking understanding—we’re rehearsing survival in real time.

Small Talk, Masking, and How Vagueness Sets the Trap

For autistic people, small talk is never small. It’s decoding disguised as connection. Every vague phrase—“let’s touch base,” “quick chat,” “pick your brain”—requires a translation we were never taught. We soften our tone, manage eye contact, hide the flicker of confusion. Politeness becomes performance.

A manager says, “let’s have a quick chat.” Your brain inventories twelve possible infractions before the meeting begins. You show up armed with context, ready to explain work no one asked about, preparing for a misunderstanding that might not exist.

A colleague wants to “pick your brain.” You agree, thinking it’s friendly. The conversation turns into unpaid consulting masked as bonding. You spend the hour decoding motive while offering expertise. You leave drained and uncertain whether you’ve built a connection or been mined for labor.

Ambiguity forces vigilance. The vaguer the cue, the more our nervous system scrambles to predict danger. That’s how small talk becomes a trap: it mirrors the same uncertainty that created the need to over-explain in the first place.

Boundary script for the moment:“I need the topic in advance. I’ll prepare, and we can schedule fifteen minutes.”

Precision protects the nervous system. Clarity is care for us and for whoever’s listening.

Autistic Loneliness, Infodumping, and When the Archive Becomes Ammunition

Autistic isolation creates a particular hunger. Years of shallow interactions, conversations that stay at surface level, never being fully known—these absences pile up. When someone finally feels safe, the floodgates open. We infodump. We share our history, our patterns, our wounds. It feels like relief after years of drought.

But infodumping isn’t oversharing. It’s co-regulation that’s been starved. The problem starts when the person who receives it doesn’t have the capacity to hold it—or when they hold it long enough to use it later. Unmet witnessing and old misreadings push us to narrate our entire archive, convinced that if we explain ourselves thoroughly enough, someone will finally understand.

In safe spaces, infodumping repairs what isolation broke. In unsafe ones, it becomes ammunition. We hand people the blueprint of our pain, thinking proximity means safety. It rarely does. The same details that make us legible also make us vulnerable.

When Autistic Over-Explaining Shows Up at Work

The professional cost of over-explaining doesn’t show up in performance reviews. It shows up in the twelve-paragraph email you sent at 11 PM trying to prevent a misunderstanding that never happened. It shows up in the Slack message you rewrote six times before sending. It shows up in the meeting where you watched people’s attention drift while you were still building context they didn’t ask for.

At work, over-explaining reads as insecurity. You’re trying to demonstrate competence, but what lands is uncertainty. You open emails with disclaimers. You end them with “Let me know if this doesn’t make sense” or “Happy to clarify further.” You pre-defend decisions nobody questioned.

A manager schedules a one-on-one. Before you even sit down, your brain has compiled a defense for every project you’ve touched in the last six months. You show up with notes. With timelines. With proof that you’ve been working, evidence that you care, a full account of why that deadline shifted. They wanted to ask about your vacation plans. If they accuse ask them to present proof and ask for time to consider what they present otherwise you are presenting them with evidence they havent considered.

You send a “just following up” message. Then another. Then a third explaining why you’re following up. Each one adds context about workload, competing priorities, your process. What started as “checking in on the report” becomes a chronicle of everything that’s happened since Tuesday. The response comes back: “Got it, thanks.”

That’s the professional trap. Over-explaining makes you look like you’re struggling even when you’re not. It signals doubt when you’re trying to signal thoroughness. And because workplaces reward concision—especially from women, especially from Black women—every extra sentence costs credibility you can’t afford to lose.

The pattern shows up in:

Emails that could be two lines. You write four paragraphs because you’re afraid two sentences will sound curt, will be misread as attitude, will get you labeled difficult.

Meetings where you’re still talking after people have moved on. You’re building toward a point, but they already got it. Now you’re losing them.

Performance reviews where you defend work nobody criticized. You walk in with a portfolio of proof. They wanted to talk about goals for next quarter.

Slack threads that become monologues. Someone asks a yes/no question. You write six messages with background, context, and contingency plans. They just needed the yes or the no.

Here’s what to do instead:

- Email rule: Write it. Cut it in half. Send that. If you’re scared it sounds rude, add one warm sentence at the end. That’s it.

- Meeting rule: Answer the question asked. If they need more, they’ll ask. Silence after your answer isn’t danger—it’s space for them to process.

- Slack rule: One message, three sentences max. If it needs more, it needs a meeting or a doc—not a thread.

- Review rule: Let them lead. Bring your portfolio, but don’t present it unless asked. Defense before accusation makes you look guilty of something.

Work doesn’t reward vulnerability. It doesn’t reward narrative. It rewards precision. And the hardest thing about being autistic in professional spaces is learning that clarity isn’t found in more words—it’s found in the right ones.

When Infodumping Becomes Exposure Without Closure

This is when infodumping turns into a rehearsal for self-harm. We call it infodumping. But what we’re really doing is exposing ourselves—opening the wound, showing every scar, explaining the entire geography of our pain—to someone we haven’t vetted for safety. Because we’re autistic, we don’t always pause to assess the room before we speak.

Therapeutic exposure has conditions: a trained witness, titrated doses, co-regulation, and repair. Infodumping has none of that. It’s raw memory dropped into casual space. We recount trauma in a DM, at a party, or during what we thought was a harmless check-in. The body relives it—heart racing, chest tight, amygdala sounding alarms—while the other person nods, untrained, unaware that they’ve just stepped into a flashback with no map.

And because we misread social capacity, we sometimes share with people who can’t or won’t receive us. They listen through judgment instead of curiosity. Later they use what we said as proof that we’re “too much” or “unstable.” The wound reopens, gets witnessed, then gets weaponized.

Over-explaining without closure functions like exposure without containment. The body relives the event without the structure that allows resolution. Every time we tell our story to someone who can’t or won’t meet us in safety, the groove of trauma deepens. The brain learns that speaking is dangerous, but silence is unbearable. That’s the bind of autistic loneliness: the need to be known colliding with the need to survive being known.

This is why scanning matters. Not everyone deserves your archive. Not every listener has the range to hold what you’re offering. If you can’t confirm someone’s capacity, write instead. Let the page absorb what your nervous system can’t yet hold in silence. The right witness won’t need proof that you survived. They’ll know by the way you speak when you feel safe.

Being Misread Twice: Autistic and Black

Black autistic women live inside a double misreading. Our directness—what in autism is called honesty—gets labeled aggression. Our silence—what in autism is processing time—gets labeled defiance. We learn early that both will be punished, so we start explaining before the misunderstanding lands.

In Treat People How They Want to Be Treated, I wrote about how reciprocity gets twisted against us. We offer generosity and get called manipulative. We set boundaries and get called ungrateful. The demand is constant: anticipate what others want, while they never ask what we need.

Directness doesn’t buy us trust; it invites suspicion. So we soften everything—tone, body, even truth. We rehearse our boundaries before setting them, layering disclaimers to make them palatable. When we’re accused of being difficult anyway, our preparation becomes evidence. “See,” they say, “she was defensive from the start.”

That’s how being misread twice becomes the price of survival. First for being autistic. Then for being Black. Each misreading widens the distance between intent and perception. The more we try to bridge it with language, the more it’s turned against us.

Over-explaining becomes the tax we pay to be seen as human before we’re seen as a threat.

How the Loop Costs Us Connection

Over time, over-explaining doesn’t just drain the body—it distorts connection. It trains us to talk at people instead of with them. We start scanning for misunderstanding before it even happens, reading every facial twitch as a potential threat. Instead of being in conversation, we start performing damage control.

People can feel it, even if they can’t name it. The rhythm changes. Eye contact turns into monitoring. Presence turns into surveillance. We walk away from interactions wondering why we still feel unseen, even after saying everything. That’s the paradox of over-explaining—it leaves us empty in the very spaces where we were trying to feel understood.

This habit shapes relationships too. The friends who can’t tolerate detail start pulling away. We need them the most for balance the friends who co-regulate us and teach us valuable skills as we also give them valuable details.

We also lose the ones who mistake our context for justification accuse us of overthinking. Romantic partners may hear our elaboration as defensiveness. The more we try to make sense, the less sense we seem to make to others. Because these people are safe spaces we make seem unsafe. It’s a painful feedback loop: our need for safety gets misread as control, our need for understanding gets read as excess.

How the Brain Learns the Loop

The autistic brain builds patterns the way others build habits through five neural mechanisms:

1. Pattern prediction — The brain records detail, rhythm, tone, every cue that might signal danger next time, scanning conversations for threat signals before they appear

2. Hypervigilance — When anything feels similar—a pause, a raised eyebrow, a sigh—the body responds as if the original harm is happening again, turning social interactions into constant safety assessments

3. Verbal rumination — To stay safe, we fill the silence with explanation, clarification, repetition. Each retelling feels like prevention, but it’s rehearsal that strengthens neural pathways to painful memories

4. Safety-seeking through context — The more we narrate the same story, the faster the brain retrieves it. The neural path to the wound becomes smooth, automatic, reliable. More detail creates a false sense of control

5. Repetition strengthening — Each over-explanation makes the next one more automatic. Repetition strengthens access routes to pain. It’s the same circuitry that helps us master language or music—repurposed by trauma

That’s why stopping the loop feels impossible. The brain confuses self-protection with survival rehearsal, keeping us fluent in danger long after the threat is gone. This loop transforms protective behavior into compulsive rehearsal.

Relearning Safety

Relearning safety starts small. It’s not about silence—it’s about pausing before the impulse. Checking whether the explanation is about information or fear. Sometimes the most self-respecting thing we can do is to let a sentence end without proof.

Safety for the autistic brain can’t come from overexposure; it has to come from predictability, regulation, and trust. We need spaces where being misread isn’t dangerous. Where silence is allowed to breathe. Where brevity isn’t punished.

That’s what relearning safety looks like: not shrinking, not masking—just refusing to hand your trauma to people who don’t know how to hold it.

Speak Less, Feel Safer, Stay Precise

Healing autistic communication isn’t about withholding clarity. It’s about protecting energy—deciding when, where, and to whom we offer it. Boundaries aren’t barriers; they’re structure. They make it possible to stay ourselves inside interaction.

Scripts for the Moment

Use these when you feel the urge to over-explain rising:

- “I answer after I think. I will reply in writing.”

- “Please send the question by email. I respond within 48 hours.”

- “I do not consult in DMs. Here is my booking link.”

These aren’t rude. They’re protective. Each one says: I can meet you, but only where my nervous system feels safe.

Structures That Reduce the Reflex

Build frameworks that interrupt the over-explaining habit before it begins:

- Default to asynchronous replies. Write first, speak later. The pause gives your nervous system time to regulate.

- Use time rules. No live clarifying unless it’s paid or pre-agreed. This removes the pressure to perform understanding in real time.

- Identify two people who read you without translation. Go to them for repair when you’ve been misunderstood. Not everyone deserves access to your wounds.

These structures don’t make you cold. They make you consistent. They signal to your brain that clarity doesn’t have to cost peace.

What to Say to Yourself

When the urge to over-explain rises, pause and remember:

- “Misunderstood does not mean unsafe.”

- “Less detail keeps me out of the loop.”

- “Silence can be care.”

Each phrase trains your body to decouple safety from performance. The goal isn’t to explain less—it’s to stop explaining from fear.

How to Interrupt Yourself Mid-Explanation

Prevention is good. But what about when you’re already in it? When you’re mid-sentence and you feel the spiral starting—the additions, the qualifiers, the need to make sure they understand not just what you’re saying but why you’re saying it and where it came from and what you mean by it?

Here’s how to stop yourself before the loop tightens:

Body-based interrupt: Put your hand on your chest. Feel your feet on the floor. The body stores the panic, so the body has to signal the stop. One breath. That’s the pause you need to notice what’s happening.

Verbal circuit breaker: Say this out loud: “Let me stop—I’m adding context you didn’t ask for. What do you actually need to know?”

It sounds vulnerable. It is. But it’s also honest. And most people will respect the self-awareness more than they’ll judge the correction. You’re not apologizing—you’re redirecting. There’s a difference.

Permission to exit: If you can’t stop cleanly, give yourself a way out: “I’m going to stop here. If you need more detail, I can send it later.”

This does two things. It releases you from the pressure to explain everything right now. And it puts the choice on them—if they need more, they’ll ask. If they don’t, you just saved both of you fifteen minutes.

After the conversation ends: Your body will still be buzzing. That’s normal. The adrenaline doesn’t stop just because the words did.

Shake it out. Literally. Move your arms, roll your shoulders, let the charge leave. Cold water on your wrists. A walk, even if it’s just to another room. Alone time—not to rehash what you said, but to let your nervous system reset.

And here’s the important part: Don’t send a follow-up message. The urge will be strong. You’ll want to clarify, to add one more thing, to make sure they didn’t misunderstand. Resist it. That follow-up is the loop restarting. Let the conversation be done.

You’re learning to trust that being misunderstood isn’t the same as being unsafe. That’s hard. But every time you interrupt the pattern, you’re teaching your brain a new route.

Green Flags: What Safety Actually Looks Like

I told you to find two people who can read you without translation. But how do you know who those people are?

We’re not always good at recognizing safety. We’ve been misread so many times that we start to believe everyone will do it. We confuse familiarity with trust. Proximity with safety. Someone being nice with someone being capable of holding what we’re offering.

Here’s what safe people actually do:

* They ask clarifying questions instead of filling in your blanks. They say, “Help me understand this part” instead of assuming what you meant.

* They can say “I don’t understand yet” without making it your fault. No irritation. No impatience. Just honest admission that they need more from you to get it.

* They sit in silence without assuming the worst. When you pause to think, they wait. They don’t rush to interpret your quiet as withdrawal or anger or judgment.

* They repeat back what you said accurately—not their interpretation. They check their understanding instead of declaring it. “So what I’m hearing is…” and then they actually say what you said, not a softened or translated version.

* They don’t weaponize what you share. Months later, in an argument or a tense moment, they don’t pull out something you told them in confidence and use it as proof that you’re “too much” or “unstable.”

* They tell you when they don’t have capacity. They say, “I want to hear this, but I can’t right now. Can we talk tomorrow?” They protect both of you by being honest about their limits.

And here’s what unsafe people do to Autistics:

They finish your sentences. They say “I know, I know” before you’re done. They get defensive when you add context, as if your need for clarity is an accusation. They reference your explanations later as evidence that you’re difficult. They use therapy language to shut you down—“you’re spiraling,” “that’s just your trauma talking”—as if naming the pattern dismisses what you’re actually saying.

Unsafe people make you feel like you have to explain more to be understood, then punish you for explaining at all.

Safe people let you be exactly as detailed as you need to be—and then they meet you there.

If you’re not sure about someone, test small. Share one thing that matters but isn’t your whole story. See what they do with it. Do they hold it carefully, or do they broadcast it? Do they ask more, or do they use it to explain you to yourself?

That’s your answer.

When Context-Giving Is Your Strength (Not Your Wound)

Not all detailed communication is pathology. Let me be clear about that.

There are contexts where precision is power. Where thoroughness isn’t trauma—it’s competence. Technical documentation. Teaching. Research. Systems design. Writing that has to carry weight across distance and time. These are spaces where autistic communication is exactly what’s needed.

The difference isn’t in the amount of detail. It’s in what drives it.

When context-giving is your strength:

* Adding detail makes you feel more grounded, not more anxious

* You’re building clarity for the other person, not safety for yourself

* You can stop when you’ve said enough without your chest tightening

* The detail serves the work, not your nervous system

When it’s trauma:

* Every addition feels mandatory, not optional

* You’re explaining to prevent harm, not to transfer knowledge

* Stopping early makes your heart race

* The detail is for your protection, not their understanding

Here’s the body check: Does adding detail make you more tense or less?

If your shoulders drop, if your breathing steadies, if you feel solid in what you’re saying—that’s authentic communication. That’s you being good at what you’re good at.

If your chest tightens, if your heart speeds up, if you’re scanning their face for signs of misunderstanding—that’s fear. That’s the loop.

Autistic people are often brilliant at synthesis, at connecting pieces that others miss, at building frameworks that make complexity legible. That’s not something to fix. That’s something to protect.

The goal isn’t to stop being detailed. It’s to stop explaining from fear. It’s to let your precision serve the work instead of serving the wound.

Know the difference. Honor both. But don’t confuse survival with skill.

Recovery After Over-Explaining

You’ve already done it. You’ve explained yourself into exhaustion. The conversation is over, but your body is still vibrating. Your mind is replaying every sentence, analyzing every reaction, wondering if you said too much or not enough.

Here’s what to do now:

* Immediate body regulation. Get alone. Even if it’s just the bathroom, the car, a corner where no one’s watching. Cold water on your wrists, your neck. Shake your arms out. Move. The adrenaline has to go somewhere—let your body discharge it instead of storing it.

* Resist the urge to send a follow-up. This is critical. You’ll want to clarify. To add one more thing. To make sure they understood. Don’t. That message is the loop restarting. The conversation is done. Let it stay done.

* Write instead of rehashing. If you need to process, put it on a page. Not in their inbox—in a journal, a note app, somewhere private. Let the page absorb what your nervous system can’t hold. Write until the charge is gone, then close it. You don’t have to send it. You don’t even have to keep it.

* Remind yourself: “I’m safe even if they misunderstood.” Say it out loud if you have to. Being misread is not the same as being in danger. This might not feel true yet. Say it anyway. You’re teaching your nervous system a new story.

* Notice if you’re replaying the conversation. That’s the loop trying to restart. Catch it early. Name it: “I’m looping.” Then redirect. Move your body. Change the room. Put on music. Do something that pulls you into the present instead of the past.

* And if you can, tell someone safe what happened. Not to rehash the content of the conversation, but to name the pattern. “I over-explained again. I’m working on it. It’s hard.” Sometimes just saying it out loud to someone who won’t judge you is enough to release the grip.

Recovery isn’t about fixing what you did. It’s about not punishing yourself for being human. Over-explaining happens. You’re not broken for doing it. You’re just tired of carrying the weight.

Let this be where you put it down.

Closing Thoughts

If this resonated, share one strategy that helped you speak less without losing yourself. If you need structured support on autistic communication, emotional regulation, or workplace boundaries, book a talk or training.

And send this essay to one person who still believes over-explaining earns safety. They might be waiting for proof that they can stop.

If this resonates, share it with someone who needs it and consider becoming a paid subscriber or contributing. Every share helps, your support sustains the work.

Work With Me: Inclusion Strategy, Keynotes, and Critical Conversations

Explore More from The Lovette Jallow Perspective

You can find more of my essays exploring:

* Neurodivergence, autism, and navigating public life as a Black woman

* Building true inclusion beyond checkbox diversity

* Reclaiming voice and agency across personal, political, and historical landscapes

* Racism in Sweden and systemic injustice

Each essay connects real-world experience with structural analysis—equipping individuals and institutions to think deeper, act smarter, and build sustainable change.

Who is Lovette Jallow?

Lovette Jallow is one of Scandinavia’s most influential voices on systemic racism, intersectional justice, and human rights. She is a nine-time award-winning author, keynote speaker, lecturer, and humanitarian specializing in:

* Neurodiversity and workplace inclusion

* Structural policy reform

* Anti-racism education and systemic change

As one of the few Black, queer, autistic, ADHD, and Muslim women working at the intersection of human rights, structural accountability, and corporate transformation, Lovette offers a uniquely authoritative perspective rooted in lived experience and professional expertise.

Her work bridges theory, research, and action—guiding institutions to move beyond performative diversity efforts and toward sustainable structural change.

Lovette has worked across Sweden, The Gambia, Libya, and Lebanon—tackling institutional racism, legal discrimination, and refugee protection. Her expertise has been sought by outlets like The New York Times and by leading humanitarian organizations addressing racial justice, policy reform, and intersectional equity.

Stay Connected

➔ Follow Lovette Jallow for expert insights on building equitable, neurodivergent-affirming environments.

🔹 Website: lovettejallow.com🔹 LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/lovettejallow🔹 Instagram: instagram.com/lovettejallow🔹 YouTube: youtube.com/@jallowlovette🔹 Twitter/X: twitter.com/lovettejallow🔹 Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/lovettejallow.bsky.social

Thanks for reading The Lovette Jallow Perspective! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lovettejallow.substack.com/subscribe