[hn_throwaway_99]

Your framing here, while I admit is quite clever, is so overly cynical that I think it misses the point entirely.

I think a more generous interpretation of his point is:

1. Everyone (execs and others) needs to translate their true goals and motivations into language, and some people do this better than others. Even great communicators have some delta between what they say and what they truly mean.

2. Thus, it pays to keep this in mind, and think from the perspective of "OK, what is the top-priority, primary thing that this exec is really trying to get across", which can sometimes mean you need to separate the wheat from the chaff of what they're saying.

Frankly, I think this is good advice for anyone on the receiving end of a message. I think this HN guideline deserves a reminder: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Thus, you can either interpret his statement in a positive manner about how you can be more effective when on the receiving end of a message, or you can complain about needing to be a Kremlinologist.