[HN Gopher] I'm a very slow thinker (2016)
___________________________________________________________________
I'm a very slow thinker (2016)
Author : mihau
Score : 473 points
Date : 2023-03-06 10:21 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sive.rs)
(TXT) w3m dump (sive.rs)
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| An ex-boss of mine was like this. He would pause before answering
| anything. I, being an impatient idiot, would fill in the awkward
| pause and carry on talking. Then he would answer the original
| question and interrupt me, and I'd have to scramble back to the
| original context and continue from there. I did slowly learn to
| give him time to think and not fill in the awkward silence, but
| it was hard.
|
| One of the smartest guys I've worked with, and an excellent boss.
| I tried emulating his ability to think hard before replying, but
| my brain doesn't work like that. I make intuitive leaps to an
| answer that I have very little rational path to and then find it
| incredibly hard to shift from that answer (or expand on it).
|
| I can think hard on things, but I need peace, quiet, and
| preferably to be walking near trees, to do it. And my thinking
| process is about making lots of intuitive leaps and then
| filtering them, rather than rationally deducting a train of
| thought.
|
| Brains are fascinating.
|
| edit: also an INTP, verging on ENTP as I get older
| mihaaly wrote:
| A joke comes to mind. Two peasants reaping
| crops and to pass time they play a guessing game. - I
| thought of something - says the first. A week passes by
| - Is it deoxyribonucleic acid? - Yes. But how did you
| know? - I had time to think.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Can you explain the joke for me?
| ngvrnd wrote:
| extremely relatable.
| roarcher wrote:
| I had a boss that would often take multiple minutes to answer a
| question. Everyone knew to say nothing and let him think. He
| usually gave good answers, but I was most impressed with his
| ability to think clearly with several people awkwardly staring
| at him from across his desk.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Yes! that too. I would be mentally panicking about what they
| thought because I wasn't saying anything and the pause was
| getting more and more awkward, but he didn't seem bother by
| it at all.
| lampshades wrote:
| I'm the same way as you. Very intuitive and talk too much.
| Tested as INTP when I was younger and have been ENTP for the
| last good while.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Weird how it changes over time. I still get very introvert
| periods where I can't stand being around other people, but
| now also a longing for company sometimes.
|
| I think part of it is that I'm better at being around people
| now - I've learned how to avoid being socially inept (well,
| mostly), and I'm less anxious around people.
| fatnoah wrote:
| When I worked at a startup and we were on the verge of being
| acquired by a very large company, I remember meeting one of the
| reports-to-C-level executives overseeing the whole thing. He
| had no problem pausing for 15-30+ seconds to digest what was
| just told to him and would respond when he understood it and/or
| needed clarification. It built a huge amount of respect vs.
| just nodding and agreeing, even when he didn't get it, but also
| not asking the first question to pop into his head when a
| moment's thought would provide the answer.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| I'm also INTP, and I've learned to wait a day on any important
| decision or problem as my subconscious percolates out better
| ideas as the day goes on. If I'm stumped on something, I move
| to a different problem, go to the bathroom, answer email.
| Whatever. I find that the answer comes to me, and it's often
| that I need to stop banging away on the same problem the same
| way and try a different tack, and if I don't break away from
| what I'm doing I keep trying the same thing the same way.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I used to smoke a lot, and needed a break every hour to go
| outside and smoke for 10 minutes.
|
| At least twice a day, I'd come back in from a smoke break to
| find that I'd been going about the current code problem all
| wrong and now knew how to do it properly.
|
| Now I don't smoke any more I find it very hard to take these
| breaks, as I get caught up in what I'm doing. My code has
| definitely suffered from giving up the smoking.
| boringg wrote:
| I'm curious if you think your boss was one of the smartest as a
| function of his brain working in a completely different way. In
| that it sounds like he had a long focus on each problem as they
| come in deductively reasoning through it.
|
| INTP also has a strong ability to solve very complex problems
| though its through rapid fire iteration (hence the intuitive
| leaps).
|
| I bet the two of your brains in combination had a good cadence
| for problem solving once the dynamic was figured out.
|
| Agree - brains are super fascinating.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Yeah, we worked well together once we got used to each other.
|
| I think the pausing to think actually conveys an impression
| of greater intelligence. And yes, this is counter-intuitive
| ;)
| everyone wrote:
| I'm the same imo. I've always found myself to be quite
| intelligent but also rather slow.
| credit_guy wrote:
| I just read [1] that George Washington was like that. Not only
| was he a slow thinker, he was practically uneducated by the
| standards of the other Founding Fathers, indeed he didn't even go
| to college. He couldn't speak any language other than English,
| and it appears he couldn't read Latin. He never traveled to
| Europe.
|
| Despite all these, George Washington was considered by his
| contemporaries as an "American Cato", which at the time was the
| highest form of praise.
|
| And of course, the US wouldn't exist without Washington, who is
| the ultimate example of a general who could get a lot done with
| only a little.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Principles_(book)
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| I'd like to think his humble upbringing also directly lead to
| setting an important precedent (stepping down after two terms).
| mtrimpe wrote:
| I once had I colleague that I had lots and lots of trouble
| engaging with. Over and over again I would try to get my point
| across but fail.
|
| That was until I noticed that if I picked up the discussion again
| the next day he had internalized yesterday's conversation. From
| then on I worked perfectly fine with him building up shared
| understanding one point at a time.
|
| I really wish for him, and me, that there was a word he could've
| used to describe his style of thinking. I'm sure it would save
| everyone many a frustration.
| xyzelement wrote:
| // that there was a word he could've used to describe his style
| of thinking
|
| I actually think you found those words in this post. He could
| have just said "I often need a day to digest a conversation. So
| ideally let me sleep on it after we talk about something"
|
| The desire to articulate something like that is 99% of the
| task. Words can be found.
| kilgnad wrote:
| The most accurate words are actually derogatory. It's obvious
| but you miss the obviousness because of politics and the need
| to be polite.
|
| Your friend is just slow.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Here are some words for you:
|
| deliberative, thoughtful, methodical, considerate,
| introspective
| kilgnad wrote:
| Here's 3 words that overrides all your words:
|
| cold hard truth.
| acuozzo wrote:
| > Your friend is just slow.
|
| The issue here is that, in the US at least, referring to
| someone as "slow" is making a statement about their IQ.
|
| There are many possible causes for the coworker's "slow"-ness
| here, e.g. anxiety, doubt, and high standards. Perhaps the
| coworker feels the need to respond only with well-researched
| responses and refuses to engage in speculation.
| kilgnad wrote:
| Inevitably a lot of people come here because they relate so a lot
| of you are slow thinkers who like to think of themselves as smart
| or different in a better way. It's the same phenomenon with so
| called "introverts."
|
| I hate to tell you this but high IQ correlates with faster
| thinking. https://www.npr.org/2009/03/20/102169531/smart-people-
| really...
|
| Everybody on HN likes to think of themselves as smart. This isn't
| true. Most people are average. I think this comment thread is an
| actual gathering of lower IQ people due to the lack of knowledge
| of the correlation between fast thinkers and IQ. First of it's
| kind I've seen.
|
| Good to compare to threads that are loaded with higher IQ people.
| But you'd have to find another correlative trait to find that
| thread.
|
| From a logical perspective IQ and faster thinking makes sense. In
| the same way a faster computer is categorically better in every
| front then a slower computer.
|
| Another measure here is that you see a lot of people using Myers
| Briggs to state their personality type. This is despite the fact
| that the test itself has little science behind it. Very unlike an
| IQ test which has huge amounts of correlative evidence behind it.
| Higher IQ people likely wouldn't put any weight on the
| personality test.
|
| There are some inevitable vote downs for this post but I'm still
| interested in contrasting this gathering of stupid people and
| responses to my post to other threads on HN where the IQ is
| obviously higher.
|
| My own IQ is up in the air. Not sure if I'm a fast or slow
| thinker.
| mikeponders wrote:
| There is nothing wrong with taking a few seconds to answer
| something. As Sivers notes, sometimes not every question needs an
| answer, sometimes you need time and courage to just admit you
| don't know something concretely. If the other person is
|
| - so impatient that they cannot wait some seconds for your answer
|
| - not having a minimum attention span
|
| - interrupting out of awkwardness or entitlement
|
| you should rethink why you are allowing this.
|
| I understand there are some situations and certain jobs that
| really require quick thinking (more like automatically recalling
| from their memory) under pressure and people are trained to
| behave in that manner, such as military and emergency services.
| Not every situation is like this and you cannot be possibly be
| prepared for every situation.
|
| I remember something that my uncle (a doctor) said to me while
| telling me stories from his education and medical practice. "When
| you are unsure of something you should always ask/consult
| someone. It is wiser to admit you do not know something rather
| than give a wrong [and potentially lethal] answer."
| [deleted]
| revskill wrote:
| It depends on problem you're thinking about.
|
| If it's tactical problem, then slow is not good for others.
|
| If it's strategic problem, then it's good to spend long time on
| it.
| xyzelement wrote:
| Yes! My wife and I encounter this all the time.
|
| I am an eng manager/product manager so usually my stuff is
| "strategy" - it's worth to keep talking/thinking because if I
| get an idea 10x better, that's millions of dollars difference
| over years.
|
| She's an emergency room physician. If she takes too long to
| think, the patient dies. It's all about quickly executed
| tactics.
|
| It took us a bit to realize how our preferred ways of thinking
| connect to our work (cause or effect, not sure)
| noisy_boy wrote:
| In the software world, tactical has a strong propensity to
| become strategic with more things getting built on top of it -
| this is the source of many many "what were they thinking?!"
| type issues. Obviously we can't afford to spend very long time
| based on the above observation without the benefit of
| hindsight, but a bit of slowing down would do more good than
| harm.
| [deleted]
| selimnairb wrote:
| I might be a slow thinker as well, or at least not as smart as I
| think I am. As I've gotten older I've started taking Mark Twain's
| quote to heart: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear
| stupid than open it and remove all doubt." In the case of
| thinking in the moment, if I don't have something cogent to add,
| I say as little as possible.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| Exactly. I often regretted that I said something, rarely
| regretted not to have said something smart. You can always say
| what you have to say asynchronously.
|
| On the other hand, you can't dismiss all questions addressed to
| you.
| Jensson wrote:
| You need to show how stupid you are or else people wont be able
| to help you correct your mistakes. Trying to hide your
| ignorance just ensures you will stay ignorant, people who know
| stuff aren't afraid to appear ignorant.
|
| People often makes the mistake thinking that those who hide
| their ignorance aren't ignorant. But as your quote shows, the
| most ignorant people are the ones who don't speak up, not those
| who do and get corrected. People just perceive the non speakers
| as less ignorant.
| meken wrote:
| This quote seems like bad advice - feels like it's telling us
| to focus on not looking stupid in front of other people (rather
| than risk asking a dumb question) and can lead to
| perfectionistic overanalyzing self doubt.
| Mimmy wrote:
| [dead]
| satysin wrote:
| > It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than
| open it and remove all doubt." In the case of thinking in the
| moment, if I don't have something cogent to add, I say as
| little as possible.
|
| Many people _know_ this yet still fail to do it.
|
| I am much the same although I was not always. I used to jump in
| first with a quick and usually basic comment.
|
| Now I listen and think of multiple responses before I open my
| mouth.
|
| Is it maturity? Wisdom I have picked up over the past two
| decades? Perhaps my brain is just a slower with age?
|
| I don't know but I certainly feel less pressure to answer first
| these days. If someone comes to me first for comment I will
| almost always answer with "I will need to think about that a
| bit more and get back to you".
|
| I've had a few people give me unsolicited feedback that I don't
| "engage" enough (what they mean here is fast enough). To which
| I just say it is far easier to start correctly a bit later than
| start sooner and make mistakes.
|
| Undoing mistakes, in my experience, takes far more time than
| starting a little later. This is especially true in design,
| development and management.
|
| Sometimes undoing mistakes is not possible without throwing all
| previous work out and starting over. That to me is far more
| frustrating and wasteful than taking a little time before you
| start to give yourself the best possible platform from which to
| begin.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| I read an interview of a world-class mathematicians who said that
| she was a "slow thinker". Obviously, as far as maths are
| concerned, she's faster than almost all humanity. This notion of
| being a slow thinker is very subjective and relative.
| AdamN wrote:
| It also may be that her habit (wiring?) of slow thinking
| enables her to do world-class math.
| qup wrote:
| That may just be familiarity.
|
| On a new topic she would probably revert to slow thinking.
| danielvaughn wrote:
| I've always struggled with this. I am _not_ good at thinking on
| the spot. I like to say that my brain "simmers" my thoughts -
| low and slow. This makes all sorts of things challenging - having
| adhoc conversations, making good impressions during an interview,
| etc.
|
| It's nice to hear someone articulate what I've never been able to
| really put into words.
| larrywright wrote:
| I discussed this with a psychologist once who said this is an
| executive function issue. Something related to working memory,
| if I recall. Fairly common in those with ADHD, but I'd guess
| not limited to that.
| jongjong wrote:
| I'm a fast thinker and good at debating but I'm a relatively slow
| learner. It's probably because I tend to initially disbelieve
| everything I'm taught - I need to see a lot of cross-references
| and utility value before my brain will accept new information and
| it will still not seem like it is a sure fact. I never feel like
| I know anything with 100% certainty. Every piece of knowledge I
| have is more like a probability in my mind.
|
| I have great memory when it comes to useful or interesting things
| but if I can't figure out the utility of some information, my
| brain struggles to learn it and will quickly discard it.
|
| The most interesting experience I remember was at school when I
| was a small child. I didn't understand the concept of school or
| education at that point. I remember after I moved up a grade, the
| teacher was referencing concepts which I had learned the year
| before (I think it was related to alphabet and reading) but
| because I was in a different class (and different teacher), I did
| not make the (supposedly obvious) assumption that the teacher was
| referring to concepts from the previous year (which came from a
| different source). In my mind, because I didn't understand the
| purpose of education or school, I had fully compartmentalized the
| knowledge from the previous year/grade and I couldn't make sense
| of the content from the later grade which built on top. Once I
| learned the purpose of school and figured out that knowledge from
| previous years was still relevant and that knowledge wasn't
| supposed to be compartmentalized based on the teacher/class, I
| was able to start learning faster. At least fast enough to be a
| slightly above average student throughout all my school and
| university years. I remember being surprised that all other kids
| seemed to know intuitively that knowledge 'stacked' regardless of
| the teacher or context. It was a big revelation to me.
|
| I still think I have a tendency to compartmentalize
| information/knowledge provided to me by different people. My
| brain compartmentalizes everything based on source until there is
| enough consensus/synthesis between the sources and then it gets
| merged into the trunk.
|
| But now that I think of it, it doesn't seem that ridiculous for a
| child to think that knowledge taught by different people isn't
| compatible... If you think about modern education, it's actually
| quite amazing and weird that two different teachers who never met
| might have the exact same knowledge as each other to the extent
| that they can reference each other's thoughts and ideas... To a
| child, it can seem like telepathy.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| > I never feel like I know anything with 100% certainty. Every
| piece of knowledge I have is more like a probability in my
| mind.
|
| This should be the default mindset of every thoughtful person!
| We are all imperfect. Our vision, hearing, reasoning and
| perception are all imperfect. Eyewitnesses to a crime routinely
| describe completely different suspects/activities, despite
| being completely earnest in their accounts. I believe it it
| absolutely crucial to maintain a certain level of doubt about
| _everything_ , at all times, based on the fact that we are
| imperfect beings that have imperfect knowledge and imperfect
| reasoning skills. I further believe that the humility that this
| constant awareness brings is useful and necessary. Beware
| people who are absolutely certain about things.
| ttjjtt wrote:
| This is making me laugh out loud a little as I relate deeply
| and I've never encountered such a clear description of it, nor
| anyone who's described themselves as similarly wired.
|
| For me it's that my brain simply will not accept facts or
| advice unless all the underlying dynamics have been made
| explicit, and it's been put into context as part of a bigger
| system. Until then it's just a distant and profoundly
| uninteresting suggestion which my brain will rapidly dispose
| of.
|
| Personally I flopped at high school science once the teachers
| stated putting rote formulas on the whiteboard without deep
| explanation if their significance, i could feel my brain
| rejecting the contextless information. Later in life I became
| fascinated by the same subjects, when I started reading well
| written popular science books.
| Arisaka1 wrote:
| Now apply this to doctors. It's crazy for me that, unless you
| have a medical issue that tend to encounter frequently enough to
| have it in their mind, you're either met with wrong diagnosis,
| often accompanied with a dose of "must be stress".
|
| But obviously my experience is 100% anecdotal because I lived 6
| years too many with an undiagnosed autoimmune disease, and
| there's a high chance that there's one ongoing on top of that.
| sgt wrote:
| Derek Sivers writes very well. What a cool guy.
| PaulMcCartney wrote:
| Makes me think back to this letter a teacher wrote to his
| students at a Jewish girls high school I used to work at. I have
| it bookmarked for myself.
|
| Dear Seniors, At our last class I did not have time to adequately
| formulate my farewell message to you and I would like to use this
| opportunity to take a second chance to convey my thoughts to you.
| Although we have only been together for a very short time over a
| few months it has been my pleasure and honor to be your teacher.
| You all have impressed me with your intelligence, your sincere
| interest in learning and your appreciation of Torah and
| knowledge. I know that you are nervous about leaving the comfort
| and safety of high school and entering a new uncharted phase of
| your life but I want you to know that I am sure that each one of
| you will continue to succeed in your endeavors. I am not saying
| that it will be easy, or that you won't feel discouraged at times
| but you should always have confidence in the abilities which I
| have seen in you. I want to give you one piece of advice. When
| you see people who seem really smart or have great memories or
| some other talent, who are very impressive, you should never feel
| inferior or inadequate. Do not become unduly impressed with
| appearances and never surrender your right to think for yourself
| and trust in your own mind. It is often the case that there is a
| deep wisdom that is not found with the fast mind but resides in
| the slow, careful, methodical thinker. Please feel free to keep
| in touch, I would love to hear from you in the future and do not
| hesitate to ask for anything you think I could help with. Best
| wishes and I hope to see you at graduation.
| svat wrote:
| I was going to post this on another thread (the Neal Stephenson
| one https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35015121), but it also
| fits here: Donald Knuth does all his writing (even coding!) by
| hand with pencil on notepad, going through several rounds of
| editing before anything reaches a computer, and his stated reason
| is that he can type faster than he can think. (Somewhere a typing
| speed of 80 wpm is mentioned, which is not even all _that_ fast.)
| So he says that writing by hand, being slower, perfectly matches
| the speed at which he can think. In other words, he describes
| himself as a slow thinker.
|
| (We can actually get some glimpses of the way he thinks from his
| public lectures, e.g. I love the 2017 Christmas lecture
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxQw4CdxLr8 or maybe--I haven't
| watched much--the 1985 problem-solving seminar course
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLABJEFgj0PWW9fQwb8JVD...
| .)
|
| And if Knuth describes himself as a slow thinker, it is a lesson
| to us all.
| hyperpape wrote:
| Is he a slow thinker, or does he just have high p50/p90 latency?
|
| If you treat the output of thinking as generating observations,
| marshalling evidence, drawing connections (and so on), then
| thinking slowly really isn't anything to celebrate. A slow
| thinker takes a day to give you an answer that someone else
| could've given in 15 minutes. They have poor minimum latency and
| bad throughput. And don't forget scaling--some people will give
| you the same answer on day 3 they give you after 15 minutes,
| others benefit from throwing more resources (time) at the
| problem.
|
| Having met plenty of "slow thinkers" who are smarter than I am,
| they're not really slow, just higher latency. They take time, but
| they generate good ideas that someone else wouldn't have. And
| they build on their ideas over time.
| ayewo wrote:
| The high latency before the OP could formulate a response
| instantly reminded me of L'esprit de l'escalier
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I don't see any difference between taking time to answer being
| measure as latency or perceived slowness.
|
| You're saying he actually thinks fast but doesn't get around to
| thinking for a while?
| hyperpape wrote:
| Take two people:
|
| Person 1 responds with the first thing that comes to mind.
| They have not considered alternatives. Person 2 considers a
| range of alternatives, and gives an answer.
|
| If person 2 takes longer, they're not doing the same thing
| person 1 does, but slower. They're doing more productive
| work, spread over a longer time.
|
| In various situations, I'd rather hear from person 1 or
| person 2.
|
| > You're saying he actually thinks fast but doesn't get
| around to thinking for a while?
|
| This is another possibility. If I just pause before speaking,
| I may be paying a fixed latency cost. I take 2 seconds to do
| what you do in 1 (100% overhead--shocking!), but I take 31
| seconds to do what you do in 30 (~3% overhead, who cares?).
|
| If he really does think slowly, it means he takes a day to
| answer your question and gives you the answer someone else
| would give in 10 minutes. That's bad.
| boringg wrote:
| I think what you are saying is in a variety of circumstances a
| fast thoughtless answer is more desirable then a deliberate
| thoughtful answer. For those situations the individual who
| thinks fast but doesn't think through the consequences has an
| advantage.
|
| However if you are looking at answers in which you want a more
| deliberate thought the process the slow thinking answer is
| probably the individual who would be best suited.
|
| Latency doesn't change output it just refers to a time lag - I
| think in this case the output is significantly different. Think
| of it more as a model, one that spits out an answer on an
| already trained model vs one thats training a model and giving
| you an answer. The model that is training takes more
| effort/time.
| hyperpape wrote:
| Not far off.
|
| The simplest version (honestly oversimplified, but it'll do)
| is to imagine a graph. Time to respond on the x axis, quality
| of response on the y-axis.
|
| Slowing down is just moving to the right. You take more time
| to deliver the same response. That would be bad.
|
| Lowering quality is just moving down. Same time, worse
| response. That would also be bad.
|
| What "slow (but deep) thinkers" do is move up and to the
| right. Better responses, delivered in more time. I don't want
| to call that "slow" though, it's just taking more time to do
| more valuable thinking.
| teekert wrote:
| I'm opposite: I'll start talking, correct myself, let myself be
| led by my conversation partner's answer and reach a conclusion.
| It's like rubberduck debugging for arguments.
|
| If you ask me a question now, it must be a very exceptional one
| if I'm still thinking about it in 2 min.
|
| For this reason I am really poor at making a presentation or
| writing IP by myself. I seek out others. My thoughts sort of go
| on repeat all by myself. It's annoying.
|
| Maybe I also want to impress others, right then and there, and by
| myself there is little motivation.
|
| Right now I should be working on a presentation for tomorrow, but
| I procrastinate. But I could easily whip it out if I were to
| discuss the stuff I want to tell with someone and jot down slides
| as we talk.
| a3w wrote:
| That is very much, what discussion in a democracy could be.
|
| "If you want a question answered (by the internet), don't ask.
| Give a false answer." say some (I am looking at you, logbuch-
| netzpolitik.de #LNP455)
|
| Seems to be a common credo. I am still looking for a content
| publisher that gives out the facts checking with the actual
| content, for me to not have to come back to re-read the actual
| answers.
| javier_e06 wrote:
| A penny for your thoughts? The true is you might have a dozen
| tasks being solved in parallel in your brain while doing the
| dishes. Hey! I just think I know where that smell comes from in
| your refrigerator!! You'll exclaim while taking about taxes on a
| comment made yesterday. Asking your brain for answers can be like
| asking your contractor to finish the driveway in 2 days. She'll
| say yes, but, you know.
| moremetadata wrote:
| When people perceive you to be a slow thinker when really you are
| calculating all the odds for your different responses.
|
| https://media.tenor.com/MFE6UiMEpRoAAAAC/math-zack-galifiana...
| racktash wrote:
| I'm definitely somebody who likes time to think things over and
| let my conflicting thoughts resolve themselves.
|
| I think in addition to this, though, I struggle to verbalise many
| of my thoughts and feelings no matter how long I'm given. I've
| always struggled with pair programming for this reason - I have a
| sort of gut instinct about many coding best practices, developed
| through years of experience, without always being able to
| efficiently summarise the whys.
| xyzelement wrote:
| That sounds very much like the Intuitive dimension (I) on the
| Meyers Brigs.
|
| I am like that as well but I found it valuable to learn how to
| unpack and communicate the logic behind my intuition if I want
| to persuade others. It's also good because sometimes our
| intuition is wrong and you won't see that until you pick it
| apart.
| racktash wrote:
| I agree regarding the usefulness of unpacking.
|
| I've been trying (with only limited success) to get better at
| verbalising thoughts/opinions and so on. It sounds like you
| may have had more luck than me - may I ask what has worked
| for you?
| xyzelement wrote:
| I'll share two things that I think are immediately
| actionable.
|
| First, I literally tell people I work with that this is
| what I am like if I think we're about to have one of those
| conversations. I literally say "I have an intuition that we
| have a problem (or whatever) here. I don't have it
| articulated well yet, but I don't want to ignore it. This
| conversation might start messily, but please ask me
| questions / call out what's unclear so I can unpack my
| intuition." People respect this.
|
| Second, I find that forcing myself to write it out is
| helpful. I often find that by paragraph 3 or 4, I realize
| what I am _actually_ excited or worried about, so then I
| can rewrite with that as the lede, or simply now talk about
| it that way. Example: I can start of writing something like
| "I realized that developer X spent 2 months on something I
| don't think is valuable to the business. What is wrong with
| X and his manager?" and as I write about that, I realize
| maybe that what we actually don't have is a well-
| articulated strategy for value delivery and we need to
| solve that." My observation of developer X was just the
| thing that chafed me when I noticed it, but the reason it
| set off the intuitive alarm is that other thing.
| racktash wrote:
| Thank you for the tips!
| mrangle wrote:
| Time improves all output, including from "fast thinkers". To
| illustrate no writers, including students, can produce their
| first rate work on their first draft. Much of the time it takes
| not only revision(s), but time away from the first round of
| thinking.
|
| I like that the author is self-aware in this manner, and I'm sure
| that he has interesting output once it comes. But this process is
| the opposite of unique.
|
| And now on to a contravening view: there is a time value to most
| valuable things including thought. It is a talent to be able to
| cobble together useful almost first-rate (novel) output on the
| fly. Which I assume has to do with the individual's rate of
| cognitive pattern processing "depth". Pattern processing being
| pretty well correlated with IQ.
|
| Though there should be exceptions. Like for people with auditory
| processing issues, or those that look like them. Whose pattern
| processing may be fast but who need a little bit of extra time to
| process language. Sometimes there is not enough time in the
| interaction, especially if it is within a group setting.
| Apsergers-type individuals arguably often match this pattern.
| silveroriole wrote:
| This is why I can't do meetings. Like the article, all I end up
| saying is "I don't know." I get battered into agreeing with the
| other person in the meeting because I can't debate with them off
| the cuff, and it's like social interaction uses up 100% of my
| brain and leaves nothing for me to think with. I only ever manage
| to form an opinion after the meeting is over, or I end up not
| hearing 90% of the meeting because I was still thinking about
| something from the beginning of it. If you ask me a question
| verbally and expect an instant answer you'll end up wondering
| whether I've even seen a computer before. It sucks.
| skylanh wrote:
| This issue has come up in the past on other forums, I think one
| of the answers that I identified the most with was saying:
|
| "I'm not sure I agree with that, and I have a few significant
| concerns. I'm not comfortable agreeing at this time. We'll have
| to take this offline and come up with a well-formed (answer,
| options analysis, options assessment)."
|
| You can also try to push back and ask for an option analysis or
| position assessment: "I'm not sure that the details are clear
| on this. Can you provide a (proper) option analysis on this
| position?"
|
| In this case bureaucracy is your friend.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| +1. "Let me go back to you" and "i don't know" are sentences
| people should use more IMO.
| wruza wrote:
| My rule of thumb is to turn your doubt into a question with
| experience attached to it. E.g. when someone says "there's an
| API for that, it should be easy", I note that not all APIs are
| equal (enumerate examples) and it must be reviewed before we
| commit to deadlines. And until that we must assume it's not
| "easy". Ask if research was done and whose responsibility it
| would be. If it wasn't, then why we decided to meet. Hanging
| responsibilities onto dangling tongues explicitly makes them
| dangle less.
|
| How hard to push back depends on the nature of discussion.
| Being too pessimistic in a research phase is not useful. But if
| it's a contract worth half a year or more, spending few days
| evaluating assumptions is wise.
|
| Remember that fast thinking is not actually fast, but shallow
| and/or optimistic.
| hammock wrote:
| >fast thinking is not actually fast, but shallow and/or
| optimistic.
|
| Sometimes fast thinking is fast. If you have mental models
| that the other doesnt, and those mental models are good in
| the limit of the context you're in, it's faster.
|
| Of course if you both have the same mental models, or the
| models don't work in the limit of your context, then more
| time lets you think deeper. Take chess. Two players in a 1min
| bullet game (mental models very applicable) vs two players in
| a 20min grandmaster battle (better to take time and think
| deeper)
| madelyn-goodman wrote:
| I really like this point, that fast thinking is shallow. I
| think there should be more respect for having to think
| deeply about things and process before coming to
| conclusions. I think that is more of a sign of intelligence
| than just responding to something right away.
| Jensson wrote:
| Answering quickly or thinking deeply first doesn't have
| much to do with intelligence, some smart people answer
| quickly and other thinks first. It mostly have to do with
| how much you care about being right, if you are deeply
| afraid of being wrong you will think a lot first before
| answering since you prefer spending all that energy over
| being wrong, while if you don't care you just answer now
| and think later.
|
| Speaking before you think makes you look dumb, but it
| doesn't make you dumb. You see the difference? You might
| have met many such people who were smart, but that you
| identified as dumb since they weren't afraid of appearing
| dumb.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Lots of people used to think that Obama pausing for
| thought meant that he was taking time to cook up lies in
| his head.
|
| Skilled liars are usually quick though because they're
| not considering if something is correct or not, they just
| need to figure out what kind of thing to say to make you
| agree with them.
| posix86 wrote:
| I don't think you can generalize like that, at all.
|
| A better sign of intelligence is knowing when thinking
| deeply is in place. And most often it's not. Most often
| it's more cumbersome to think for a long time than making
| the occasional mistake.
|
| People that think long & hard about everything don't have
| their priorities right.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Again, it _really_ depends.
|
| If you're doing a research or fun project, where failure
| has no consequence? Then yeah, mess around, move stuff,
| go fast, break things. Worse is better.
|
| There are so many situations where there are,
| consequences, though. Either because failure is pretty
| dang bad, or (perhaps more commonly for our industry) a
| mistake will increase our tech debt. Our failure to spend
| a few extra hours thinking it through in the short term
| might lead to hundreds of hours of tech debt or (in the
| extreme case) our entire project/company to fail in the
| long run.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| I'm sorry but in a practical corp environment this is a fast
| track to be fired. You become the person constantly in the
| room enumerating edge case doubts that aren't often even
| relevant. You map the blockers vs the opportunities and end
| up focusing the team on them.
|
| The goal is to avoid blockers, not enumerate them uselessly.
|
| Can it be done? Yea? Sure ok then let's figure it out. The
| million ways it can't aren't relevant.
| albatross13 wrote:
| I love this line of thinking, it's how old companies I
| worked with developed entire rest APIs using only AWS
| Lambda and after sinking tens of millions into it they
| abandoned it :)
|
| CAN IT BE DONE? OH YEAH!
| robofanatic wrote:
| at least now they know that it can't be done
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > Remember that fast thinking is not actually fast, but
| shallow and/or optimistic.
|
| Q: What's the difference between a novice and an expert?
|
| A: The novice thinks twice before doing something stupid.
| Jensson wrote:
| Iterating on mistakes until it works is how most do
| programming, so yeah doing that faster is what experts do.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Software development as a whole is iterative, but you
| don't always get the chance to iterate on individual
| things.
|
| If you and I are working on Project Blahblahblah with a
| team of 20, sure, we're iterating that. But the crazy
| bad, hacky, barely-works spaghetti code I crammed in
| there for feature ABC? It might be a _long_ time until we
| get to iterate on that particular ball of tech debt.
|
| I think maybe that's why I'm burning out on this
| industry. It's ship, ship, ship, new, new, new and never
| a chance to iterate for quality.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Here's some advice that may help you:
|
| * Every meeting should have an agenda
|
| * If there's an expected outcome from the meeting then all
| participants should be aware of that
|
| * All estimates should be brought back to your team after being
| discussed
| 100011_100001 wrote:
| If it's a small meeting I will say, "Give me a moment, I'm
| thinking". Even then it's faster thinking than I would like.
|
| If I'm forced to answer something, the more significant it is
| the more of a caveat I will make. Something along the lines of
| "Right now, I think X would be fine, I'm worried that Y might
| cause problems. I will look at the code and let you know".
|
| Then I always make sure to reply in an email to say for our
| conversation on X, I looked at Y, I found this, and also
| realized that Z will be affected. I'm basically buying time,
| the key, at least from my perspective is always going back and
| answering properly.
| au8er wrote:
| From my experience, saying "I'm thinking" actually makes it
| worse. Instead of thinking for a response, I internally start
| to panic (mainly thinking whether I have considered
| everything and the response is correct). After a few seconds
| of "thinking", I eventually give a response that is no
| different to my knee-jerk reaction.
|
| I do find replying with an email to be extremely helpful.
| Even if the response is not correct, it does show you have
| put in the effort to reflect on the meeting after it has
| finished.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > After a few seconds of "thinking", I eventually give a
| response that is no different to my knee-jerk reaction.
|
| In interviews with Magnus Carlsen and the other top
| players, they all seem to say the same thing: the big
| difference between a short game (bullet/blitz) and a long
| game is that they'll have more time to verify the move in
| the long game. They don't spend more time _finding_ the
| move.
|
| I find this resonates with me. Very often the instinctive
| solution I come up with on the spot is often a very good
| solution and requires only minor tweaks.
|
| > I internally start to panic (mainly thinking whether I
| have considered everything and the response is correct)
|
| I just add a caveat: "I think X is a good solution but I
| have not had time to consider all the edge cases, so I will
| have to verify and come back to you" or similar.
|
| Or, if the problem is complicated I'll just say that:
| "There are a lot of complexities/edge cases to consider
| here, I need to think more thoroughly about this. I'll get
| back to you later".
| robofanatic wrote:
| I hate the kind of meetings where there are couple of smart
| guys, very experienced in a specific domain, talk about a
| complex concept in few abstract words and talk among themselves
| knowing that no one else is understanding, and you are not at a
| level where you can stop them and ask them to unpack what the
| hell they are talking about and take a whole lot of time from
| the meeting to explain.
| samstave wrote:
| Interestingly, this is why I attribute my self as a _" Social-
| Kinetic-Learner"_ - meaning that I learn best in a social and
| kinetic (meaning doing) manner.
|
| I am a slow thinker when alone because ADHD, thought-tangents-
| based-on-material, too-theoretical text based rote learning,
| and getting stuck at small hurdles where I dont have anyone to
| coach me through an issue.
|
| But I thrive in meetings, design sessions, projects with others
| and am a very fast problem solver and thinker.
|
| Its why its hard for me to learn new things alone.
| varispeed wrote:
| I used to struggle with this as I am exactly the same.
|
| I just say at the meeting that it's something I need to process
| and that we should not make any final decisions. I sometimes
| don't say anything if I think it is not important.
|
| Usually there is no problem. That being said I had a fair share
| of workplaces that hired bullies, so then I rather quit than
| fight. Life is too short and there is plenty of job offers.
|
| It helps to take PM or someone else in charge aside and talk
| about this and neurodivergence and ask them to be more
| accommodating. In many countries, by law, they are required to
| make reasonable adjustments for accessibility.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Recently things got so bad that I have started to simply tell
| people "Hum, I can't (decide on this | solve this problem) in a
| meeting. If possible, can I give you the answer first thing
| tomorrow?"
|
| Some powerful people insist on the meeting anyway, always with
| disastrous results. But it's enough to not distress myself
| trying to make it work.
|
| And yes, it's mostly because I can't think during a meeting.
| Very often I have an answer as soon as the meeting finishes.
| boringg wrote:
| The kicker is that after the fact you've walked through all the
| mistakes of the debate but its now null and void.
|
| It's almost like George Costanza (not a great comparison to be
| fair) and the "jerk store called" joke episode.
| nice_byte wrote:
| what I do in similar situations is drag them down to my level.
| make the other party explain themselves and break the idea down
| into smaller and smaller bits until you can process everything.
| sometimes this actually helps _them_ see the error in their
| judgement that I didn't even know was there.
| itissid wrote:
| For most people(junior and midlevel), there are two kinds of
| meetings: 1. Where you seek to get some information that is non
| trivial to ask on slack or at a water-cooler. 2. You are asked
| to contribute information that you already have.
|
| Everything else that requires thinking and is a follow up, i.e.
| you can delay it(probably on slack of lunch or 1:1).
|
| Also always try recording a meeting(minute big ones or voice
| record with consent to go over later). Forgetting and
| misremembering the facts a day or week later is probable.
| specialist wrote:
| "That's a really interesting idea. Hmmm, it's worth checking
| out. I'm really busy working on [hyper duct work over
| modulator], so gimme a few days to try some things. I'll get
| back to you, whatever I find. Thanks for speaking up!"
|
| Always praise the suggestion. Diplomacy beats correctness in
| such situations.
|
| Most often, whoever is in charge of the schedule will push
| back for you. Can't risk the deadline every time someone has
| a goofy idea.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| I feel like this is culture dependent. In my country and
| workplace, praising like this would uncanny.
| jrs235 wrote:
| >Also always try recording a meeting(minute big ones or voice
| record with consent to go over later). Forgetting and
| misremembering the facts a day or week later is probable.
|
| And if you or someone didn't take minutes or record it,
| followup with the participants in an email memorializing what
| you took away from the meeting and correct you if you
| misunderstood or forgot/left anything out. Sadly this is a
| bit of CYA (Covering Your Ass) but can help when questions
| like "who choose to go with that solution route and why?"
| arise weeks or months later.
| cratermoon wrote:
| I take inspiration from the portrayal of Dr. Legasov's respond
| to being challenged to explain how an RBMK reactor explodes.
| "I'm not prepared to explain it at this time". It's OK say, "I
| don't know yet, but I will find out", even at the most tense
| moments in a devastating catastrophe. I argue that moments like
| that are when it's most essential to pause and consider
| carefully.
|
| https://youtu.be/AQ2g3l0U94g?t=116
| kqr wrote:
| Role models are useful! An acquaintance worked as a
| (somewhat) low-level volunteer at a (somewhat) large sports
| event. These things are run according to a schedule that is
| detailed down to the minute, but my acquaintance determined
| it was unsafe to send the competitors onto the field due to a
| screw-up by the organisers. (Concurrent event close by
| occasionally spilled over.)
|
| Despite enormous pressure, he remained firm in advising the
| competitors to stay inside until the problem was fixed. And
| they did.
|
| It reminds me that if you're not an ass, and a team player
| normally, and essential to the operation, you have a
| surprising amount of leverage even under pressure, and when
| your formal authority is low. It's okay to politely say "not
| now" until you're actually ready.
|
| (The difficult bit is, as always, knowing when _you 're_ in
| the wrong!)
| cma wrote:
| Isn't that different? His reason for that was be had info on
| why the reactor was made that way that was considered a state
| secret.
| beebmam wrote:
| Can't you say: "I need to think about it for a bit before I
| commit"?
| analog31 wrote:
| Ha ha, you just committed... to thinking about it. If you're
| the only person in the room who requires this kind of
| thinking, then you just committed to all of the tasks.
| Moreover, you've also tacitly accepted the burden of proof.
|
| I've been there, which is why your comment caught my eye. I
| learned some strategies for dealing with the issue, but of
| course that learning came with age and stature within the
| organization, so YMMV. The best is to get agreement that
| analysis is needed, but delegate it if possible. Some
| examples of better responses:
|
| * This needs some quantitative thinking before we commit
|
| * One of the engineers can do an analysis
|
| * I could mentor somebody on how to do this kind of analysis
| zmgsabst wrote:
| "That's an interesting idea! -- why don't you write up a
| quick wiki entry and we can review it after standup/at the
| next meeting?"
|
| I see several of us have played that game over the years.
|
| To be fair, sometimes the answer was that I was being
| grumpy and it was a great idea -- which I learned by
| reading the wiki entry. And the junior engineer learned to
| sell their idea in writing. Which means even when you
| "lose", you still win at being a good senior engineer.
| Infernal wrote:
| My name for this phenomenon in meetings when you have people
| "battering" you into agreeing with things is Bullshit Chicken.
| Chicken being the maybe apocryphal "game" of driving head on in
| a car against your opponent, with the loser being the one who
| swerves first. Bullshit Chicken being the meeting where whoever
| spins enough bullshit without swerving wins the "debate". I
| suck at Bullshit Chicken because I'm still trying to wrap my
| head around the first bit of bullshit (just an example from
| elsewhere in the thread "There's an API for it, so it'll be
| easy") and the bullshitter is on to the fifth point already.
|
| Related to Bullshit Chicken, the bullshit asymmetry
| principle[0] - that it takes 10x as much time and energy to
| refute bullshit as it does to create it.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
| Jensson wrote:
| And if you manage to refute all of their bullshit all that
| usually happens is that they get really angry and you get
| fired for not being a teamplayer.
|
| The winning move is to make friends with leaders beforehand
| so that nobody dares refute your bullshit, or if you didn't
| do that then don't play the game.
| iamflimflam1 wrote:
| I'm a bit of both. And it often depends on who I'm interacting
| with/how comfortable I am with the person.
|
| With some people talking through ideas is easy - they understand
| that way of thinking and know that when you are talking it's a
| work in progress and not the final idea.
|
| Other people it's more tricky. When you say something they
| interpret as the conclusion of a lot of deep thinking and will
| assume you are a complete ass when you trot out some half formed
| idea.
|
| You just need to learn how other people work to make sure you
| don't mess things up.
| [deleted]
| ouid wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the subtext here is that thinking slower means
| thinking higher quality thoughts.
|
| I'm pretty skeptical of this. In fact, I'd wager that what the
| author is actually doing is not revealing his thoughts quickly.
| There's nothing wrong with being shy or reserved, but let's not
| jump to neurodivergent superpowers just yet.
| theusus wrote:
| It was similar with me, and turned out I had social anxiety and
| depression. Just because I didn't want to upset anyone. I avoided
| saying anything, and soon it became a habit.
| eetus wrote:
| I feel like I'm a slow thinker until I'm able to cache answers
| derived from experience or from seeing a similar problem.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I think this describes me as well. Although I do wonder if part
| of the problem isn't that I'm fairly prone to the associative
| mode of thinking and highly reluctant to the linear mode of
| thinking so I struggle to reason my way to an answer.
|
| I can give answers to questions I've already thought about, but
| if you give me a new question all my brain will output is
| "spinner.gif" until I've gone for a walk or something. It's very
| hard to get it to think about a particular topic and arrive at a
| timely answer.
|
| Honestly it's not great all the time.
| talkingtab wrote:
| I am probably the slowest thinker I have ever met. (Let me know
| if you are slower). This may not show because I often reject
| ideas immediately. What happens (I think) is that someone saying
| "gluons are the answer to world peace" triggers my current
| (outdated) understanding that "a gluon has nothing to do with
| world peace". It is only later that the idea that perhaps a gluon
| is a metaphor for the exchange of charged political opinions
| comes along. Hmmm. It is only later, days or weeks, that I fully
| take in the concept. (And no, I don't think gluons are the answer
| to world peace, but still ...)
| mypastself wrote:
| > Let me know if you are slower
|
| Let me think about it first, and I'll get back to you.
| nickcw wrote:
| I love reading what Derek Sivers writes - he has become a wise
| man.
|
| Quick responses and slow responses reminds me of Daniel
| Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow". I found it a very
| thought provoking read and in particular how often our quick
| responses are completely wrong with 100% confidence.
|
| That in turn makes me think that those quick responses are very
| much like what ChatGPT does - come up with the most likely thing
| to say using our meat based large language model.
| lapcat wrote:
| This is one reason why I hate job interviews. Also timed
| standardized tests. They filter for memorization, not
| thoughtfulness.
|
| To be clear, I'm good at memorization, if I'm allowed the
| opportunity to practice beforehand, as the author explains about
| his media interviews. But I still object on principle to testing
| the wrong things, and I don't always have the opportunity, time,
| or inclination to memorize some trivia to satisfy the cargo cult.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| Exactly. The added dimension of time pressure inherently
| affects a whole swath of people _disproportionately_ who are
| perfectly capable of the job, but who are sensitive to this
| type of artificial restriction. I always wonder how many
| brilliant people are wasting away because they were denied a
| role due to this.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| I struggle with it, always have been, but doing things under
| pressure is not a useless metric. I see it in real life
| situations ask the time the people who can deal with pressure
| are far more successful.
| lapcat wrote:
| The article author Derek Sivers is very successful.
|
| I started my own business, which 5 years later is going
| pretty well for me, achieving my personal goals. I didn't
| have to interview for the job. ;-)
| MrGilbert wrote:
| I recently learned that job interviews are great at showing
| what's wrong with the company you are applying for.
|
| For instance, I recently had an interview where I got hammered
| with questions regarding design patterns. My daily work doesn't
| consist of figuring out why I should prefer the Observer
| pattern or Mediator pattern over one another.
|
| As such, I failed to give a satisfying answer in 2 minutes. How
| it would normally work for me: I see that I would need to apply
| one or the other, and would start researching the pros and
| cons. I've used both of them. This is a substantial decision,
| and as such needs some time and thoughts.
|
| Or maybe I'm the fool and I'm just "doing it wrong".
| dmichulke wrote:
| Sounds like they're filtering out functional programmers.
| Bold move.
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| Fwiw, I've asked candidates seemingly meaningless questions
| that don't directly relate to the day-to-day activities of
| the job.
|
| The questions - and how a candidate responds - can be helpful
| to both sides (as observed) wrt figuring out how individuals
| might fit into the prospective organisations.
|
| For instance, from the employer's pov, if the organisation is
| already filled with academic Computer Scientists, and the
| interviewee comes across as dismissive of the importance of
| design patterns, it's a red flag about fitting in. However,
| if they go over the top the other way, then that might be a
| red flag about how practical they might be. If they don't
| know where to start with the question or are perhaps tongue-
| tied, then that's also information.
|
| While from the interviewee's pov, if they prefer a more
| practical environment, then those questions may be, as
| observed, a red flag about a role that wouldn't be a good fit
| for the candidate.
|
| A good interview process maximises the flow of information in
| both directions in a short space of time and increases the
| chances of a good fit. It's a process to which these type of
| questions can be helpful when properly applied.
| nemetroid wrote:
| This isn't central to the point you're making, but I would
| place design pattern knowledge squarely in the realm of
| software engineering and not computer science.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| How do you know you're doing a "good interview process"?
| staunton wrote:
| It's almost never possible to test for what matters. The most
| important actually measurable quantity in any test of someone's
| skill or knowledge ir their motivation and willingness to
| prepare for the test. The next-most important is general
| intelligence. These two things probably account for most of the
| correlation between what you care about and things you can
| reasonably measure in a test.
| lapcat wrote:
| > The next-most important is general intelligence.
|
| What does that mean exactly?
| Jensson wrote:
| If that isn't just a rhetorical question, you can see:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
| lordnacho wrote:
| I think it depends on whether you're thinking about something
| technical that requires some reflection. Then it makes sense that
| you digest it with your rational mind and adjust whatever your
| initial thoughts were.
|
| But the number of times I've met someone and immediately thought
| "oh what an asshole" only to stick around and find out I was
| right... I wish I'd gone with my gut feeling.
| robofanatic wrote:
| well this can be implemented everywhere except a job interview!
|
| "Hmm. I don't know." "ask them to send me some questions a week
| in advance" "We'll see."
|
| I don't think any of the above will land you the job ;-)
| mindwork wrote:
| This article had huge influence on me when I first read it. It
| helped me to understand that I'm not alone, and that there are
| people like that in the world. That thinking slow is not a mental
| deficiency or lack of something, but rather different way of
| processing information. There was nothing wrong with me. And it
| gave me the hope that people who think slow can be successful
| too. You just have to play your strengths and cover for your
| weaknesses.
| kstenerud wrote:
| Debates are a stupid concept anyway. They're nothing more than
| verbal jousting, with people looking to score points on the other
| and "win". That does not an intelligent or useful discussion
| make.
| lapcat wrote:
| Every memorable line from famous political debates was
| conceived and practiced beforehand, the politician just waiting
| to land it.
| borbulon wrote:
| it's entirely possible to "win" a debate and still be dead
| f*king wrong.
| randomdata wrote:
| The only winners in a debate are those who learned something,
| so yes, it stands to reason that the winners are going to be
| "wrong".
| karmakaze wrote:
| I'm both a slow thinker like this, as well as a fast thinker who
| will spew out the first intuitive thing that pops into my head. I
| will usually follow up with either amendments or contradictions
| to what I've said shortly after or the next day/week. On the
| other extreme, I used to pause and think to assess and accurately
| answer "How are you doing?" greetings, before realizing that it
| just means hello.
|
| The short of it is, if people want quick answers I'll give them
| but will often change my opinion when new information from even
| my own noggin changes it. It's also good to pause to give less
| senior folks have a crack at it and refine those. Sometimes
| surprising/better lines of reasoning can arise.
| nraynaud wrote:
| What's interesting is that it ties in with the Hollywood mindset,
| where everything is a nice story in 3 parts. While deep thinking
| is full of re-phrasing, interrupted sentences, and long silence
| where we are googling. A nightmare to do an interactive show
| about.
|
| Edit: and then feel bad about ourselves for not being able to
| tell a nice linear story like in he movies. But it doesn't work
| with original thinking.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| I wish I was a slower thinker. It might keep me out of the tiring
| loop of hopping on news threads and posting comments on articles
| and waiting to see how they're received.
| aeonque wrote:
| Excellent! Thank you for the reminder that humility isn't a
| weakness.
|
| Side note: love the "We'll See" story - it's a perfect
| illustration of the power of accepting Impermanence (Buddhism)
| thiago_fm wrote:
| That's a typical INTP / type 5 enneagram brain wiring. I'm
| exactly like this.
|
| The real issue for us is first time impressions. If people knew
| you before because of something important you've done, they will
| respect you. Otherwise, you'll fail to impress in the most
| important time: the first impression.
|
| It took me a long time in my career & expensive coaching sessions
| and so on, to understand that I really need to work my ass off
| for my first impression, even more that I don't give ChatGPT-like
| responses to everything (lots of confidence, but just plainly
| wrong).
|
| Of course, if I can just use my credentials to give an initial
| impression, that's better. But that's not usually the case. When
| it isn't, I need to be very present and aware that "it's my first
| impression, no need to be so precise, just say something silly
| and light-hearted.", because that's what most people typically
| expect.
|
| I started to find examples of people who dealt with this very
| well, like Steve Jobs and other people that are known to make
| long pauses and to think before they say something. But even
| those people aren't a great examples, because they generally are
| known to be geniuses at their fields and this basically makes
| your audience want to listen to you.
|
| You just really need to work on that skill, or accept that it
| will hamper your progress in life.
| Felminor wrote:
| I'm then the proof that intp is wrong.
|
| Because I think fast and that intp also matches me.
|
| But I'm honestly thinking this type of categorisation is stupid
| and doesn't add calue
| lamontcg wrote:
| In this thread there are people saying the person in the
| article is INTP and people who are saying they're the
| opposite and they're INTP.
| guiriduro wrote:
| [flagged]
| texaslonghorn5 wrote:
| or they expected autocorrect to catch it but it didn't
| trigger because no period. this is an entirely unnecessary
| comment lol
| hollander wrote:
| Maybe you're an atypical INTP?
| corobo wrote:
| Yeah I always get INTP and I get (secretly, internally)
| impatient with people who can't keep up. Hell I get impatient
| with myself if I'm not thinking fast enough. Maybe it's INTP
| with an ADHD modifier? Haha
|
| Can't stand it when people run off into the weeds on examples
| too. Just.. it's an example. Please just get the concept of
| examples. They are to get us on the same context. If you can
| correct my example you can understand what I'm saying. We're
| good. Please continue with the original thought as if I'd
| given a good example.
|
| Go go go go go! No, dammit, don't complain I'm being too
| impatient or hard on myself either, you're wasting time! Go
| go go!
|
| Of course outwardly this goes through a don't be a jerk
| filter. Impatience is my problem.
|
| E: Should clarify this is only for skillset relevant
| conversations. You can take as long as you like on spiritual
| or philosophical thoughts.
|
| I just did another test, idk can they change? INTP-T again
|
| E2: I should correct myself actually. If I'm popping back to
| make these edits half an hour and an hour after I posted the
| original comment then surely I'm thinking fast (initial
| comment) and also thinking slow (oh wait no, go back to that
| one thought, add this too).
|
| Hey me, maybe that bit about examples is it's own blog post
| pal? It went a bit into the weeds itself there. Was it
| relevant or just on your mind? If you'd have thought slower
| you might not have bothered typing that bit.
|
| I'll have to reflect on this one :)
| Felminor wrote:
| ADHS yes here too :)
| [deleted]
| abakker wrote:
| The thing about these scales is that they are actually
| numeric. (And not real good, but that's another story.) I'm
| an INTP, but really close to the middle on the I and the N.
| It changes things relative to some coworkers who are much
| more I than me.
|
| Some people are introverts like "I just want to be alone to
| work and recharge".
|
| I'm an introvert like, " I'll do this on my own, but if you
| want to help, I'm happy to have you along."
|
| Social situations don't really stress me out, but I don't
| do well in group conversations.
| corobo wrote:
| On the random site I just used it did have a "turbulent"
| or sense of urgency result, which was a hair off 100%.
| Maybe that's the bar that determines fast or slow
| thinkers? Assertive vs Turbulent was the scale.
|
| As an on again off again anxious mess, maybe I think fast
| so I can have multiple answers ready in case my first
| isn't good enough? Maybe my thinking will slow down over
| time (in therapy, anxiety and self-confidence are things
| I'm working on). It's a hypothesis anyway.
|
| If that is the case then at the extreme ends fast
| thinkers within INTP don't believe in themselves and slow
| thinkers do. Fast thinkers are cups half empty (and will
| likely fall on the floor if I'm not careful) people and
| slow thinkers are cups can be refilled later people. Both
| are logical, just different levels of confidence.
|
| It kinda checks out now I've typed it out haha. It does
| sort of imply there's more than 16 types of people, but
| that's for Myers and Briggs to deal with.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I read this and I identify with it, and I also read tales
| from slower thinkers and I identify with that too. Really
| depends on the situation.
|
| I wish there was more room in society for both types of
| thinking.
| corobo wrote:
| I think there's a book that goes into the two
|
| "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahnmeman. I've yet
| to read it but it's on the list.
|
| E: your comment made me realise I do both too. For
| example coming back to HN to add to comments I posted
| half an hour ago :-)
| MadSudaca wrote:
| i don't necessarily agree that the categorization process
| doesn't add value, but I certainly think that the categories
| themselves do.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > Because I think fast and that intp also matches me.
|
| I would suggest that if you primarily think in a fast,
| intuitive manner, then INTP doesn't match you because that
| antithetical to what INTP means. Perhaps you are reading too
| much into the "type descriptions" which tend to be
| stereotypically and not particular accurate (or are being too
| trusting of questionaire test results). Many of the types are
| similar to each other, so it's common to see oneself to an
| extent in more than one description.
|
| To be an INTP means that your dominant thinking process is
| "Introverted Thinking" which is slow, reasoned, logical
| thinking that places a high emphasis on internal consistency.
| And that this is backed up with a secondary thinking process
| of "Extraverted Intuition" which is fast, intuitive thinking,
| which an emphasis on ideas and creative, divergent thought
| patterns. Or at least, that this was true of you as a young
| person.
| [deleted]
| tootie wrote:
| I think what it actually means is that personality type
| definitions are meaningless. I'm the same as above. I'm
| about as introverted as they come, but I also spent a years
| working in tech services that included sales. It's a skill
| like anything else. My brain works very fast and more
| importantly, I know what I know and what I don't and just
| got very good at articulating that without hemming and
| hawing. It's not intuitive thinking as much as it's
| reasoned extrapolation.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > I'm about as introverted as they come, but I also spent
| a years working in tech services that included sales.
| It's a skill like anything else
|
| I like to think of MBTI-style types as describing as
| describing the baseline at which your personality started
| before it was influenced by life experience such as
| working in sales for several years. That will have
| changed your personality but it doesn't affect your type.
|
| If you expect an MBTI type to describe your personality
| as-is then you're going to be disappointed. This is also
| why the questionnaires are so inaccurate because they
| tend to ask about behavioural patterns which are
| influenced by life experience. You can get a much more
| accurate typing if you ask about _why_ you act in a
| certain way, but that 's hard (impossible) to do with a
| fixed set of questions.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I guess I have to take the test again. My old job had our
| types in the description of our team slack channel. I just
| remember being one of three extroverts on a team of 12.
|
| But the way this person describes things is how I am
| precisely, when it comes to discussion on philosophy,
| politics, and so on. Debatable topics.
|
| Slightly less so when I already know something or we are in
| a design/brainstorming session, I am more assertive.
|
| I'm skeptical of the emphasis on the alphabet sorter.
|
| Then again I see you have responded to some similar
| criticism of it below so I'll try to remember to read it
| when I'm not supposed to be managing a project.
| Jensson wrote:
| > I would suggest that if you primarily think in a fast,
| intuitive manner, then INTP doesn't match you because that
| antithetical to what INTP means
|
| Why? N stands for intuitive, and the rest have nothing to
| do with thinking fast or slow. P just means you don't judge
| quickly, P could still come up with tons of ideas and
| explanations quickly, they just don't judge one of those
| correct.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Because just treating the letters separately as
| personality traits doesn't really work. That's the theory
| that's been tested and found to be bunk. What is more
| interesting is translating the 4-letter codes into a
| "stack" of cognitive functions. See
| https://personalityjunkie.com/functional-stack-type-
| dynamics... for more information the concept of a
| "functional stack".
|
| Additionaly, due to extravert bias, they got the P and
| the J the wrong way around when designing the 4-letter
| codes:
|
| - "I" means your top function is introverted (this makes
| sense)
|
| - But "P" means your top _extraverted_ function is a "P"
| function (N or S) rather than a "J" function (F or T)
|
| But as an introvert's top function is introverted not
| extraverted, and according to the theory J/P alternates
| down the stack, that mean's that an I..P type's overall
| top function is a actually "J" function. Specifically in
| the this case "Introverted Thinking" (often notated
| "Ti").
|
| Introverted Thinking is actually slow in two ways:
|
| - Because it's a J ("Judgement") function. Which just
| means it's either an F ("Feeling" or T ("Thinking")
| function. These correspond to the Slow thinking from
| Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow. That's what
| "Judgement" is.
|
| - Because it's an I ("Introverted") function. This
| doesn't make it actually slow, it just makes it appear
| slow. This is because "I" functions involve a relatively
| long amount of internal coginition before seeking more
| input from the external environment (this is what it
| means to be an "I" function). Which will appear slower to
| the observer who can't observe the persons internal
| thinking processes and can only observe when they
| interact with their environment.
| Jensson wrote:
| So you mean that someone can't be introverted, trust
| their intuition, think instead of feel and not be
| judgemental, without also having a slow thinking pattern?
| That seems like nonsense to me. Where would you place
| such a person if you argue that they can't be an INTP? Or
| is your point to show how badly designed MBTI is?
| nicoburns wrote:
| I certainly think the MBTI as a questionaire and the
| encoding of types into 4-letter codes is badly designed.
| But I think the interpretation of underlying theory based
| on cognitive functions and functional stacks is both
| elegant and compelling.
|
| Taking your description naively, such a person would
| likely be an INTJ. Which has a functional stack of (in
| order of most to least used thinking processes):
| Introverted Intuition - Extraverted Thinking -
| Introverted Feeling - Extraverted Sensation.
|
| I realise that doesn't make much sense if you are used to
| applying the 4-letter code to persons directly. But as I
| mentioned above, I don't think that is a good way of
| doing things. It makes more sense if you take the 4
| letter codes as simply being an opaque shorthand encoding
| for functional stacks (with the individual letters in the
| code not having meaning on their own, only indirectly
| through their correlation to a functional stack). E, I,
| N, S, T, F, P, J then become properties of _thinking
| processes_ and an "extraverted person" is simply someone
| who primarily tends towards using one of the four
| extraverted thinking processes (Fe, Te, Ne, Se). They may
| or may not present like the everyday understanding of how
| an extravert presents (e.g. sociable and chatty).
| Typically people who have a "Extraverted Feeling" (Fe)
| dominant function closely fit this stereotype, but other
| types extraverts often don't.
| Jensson wrote:
| Ok, that makes sense, but you should probably clarify
| that you have a nonstandard view of MBTI when you say
| that people can't be the personality type they describe
| themselves as.
|
| If someone did the test and got INTP, then I think it is
| fair for them to describe themselves as INTP. You might
| say that the test was wrong, but as I said that isn't how
| most see MBTI.
| nicoburns wrote:
| It's actually not that non-standard. It's how the
| majority of people who are into MBTI / jungian type view
| things (where I've linked MBTI to Kahneman's Fast/Slow
| thinking _is_ non-standard, but a cognitive functions +
| functional stack view is not).
|
| It's also what the more advanced "Step III" version of
| the official MBTI test is based on. But that that
| assessment isn't just a simple questionaire: it can be
| only be conducted by a trained assessor and the cost of
| training course runs to thousands of pounds, so most
| people don't have experience of it, and it ends up being
| the simpler naive model that most people learn about.
| donkeyd wrote:
| > slow, reasoned, logical thinking that places a high
| emphasis on internal consistency
|
| Seeing it written out like that really makes me understand
| why (unaware) hypocrisy annoys me so much.
| Jensson wrote:
| But what about fast, reasoned, logical thinking that
| places a high emphasis on internal consistency? There is
| no need for slow there.
|
| Think eventual consistency rather than strict consistency
| in the world view and the thinking can be blazing fast
| and keep the other properties. The only advantage to slow
| is that it avoids the short periods of inconsistency, but
| that also hurts it since it is harder to make big changes
| in the world model.
| nicoburns wrote:
| IMO if you're thinking in terms of eventual consistency
| then that's a very different outlook to the one described
| above. There is also:
|
| - Extraverted Thinking which is also relatively careful,
| reasoned and logical but puts more emphasis on external
| validity than internal consistency.
|
| - Introverted intuition which is faster, more intuitive
| mode of thinking which some people might see as logical
| but isn't really. It's logical in the way ChatGPT is
| logical: it works until it doesn't.
|
| Note also that nobody is using just one of these
| functions. So it's normal to lead with an intuitive
| thought and then back that up with logic or vice versa.
|
| But I stand by the idea that you either be fast XOR fully
| reasoned. You can still be "kinda fast" and reasoned (but
| you'll never be as fast as intuitive judgements that are
| close to instant), and you can be pretty accurate with
| fast intuitive thought (but you'll never be as assured as
| a more thoroughly reasoned position - sometimes your
| intuition will lead you astray).
| Felminor wrote:
| I have a very deep purely logical based Argumentation
| style.
|
| I can and often explain on a logical level my point of
| view.
|
| I just don't need much time to do so because I constantly
| think about everything
| bick_nyers wrote:
| The way I kind of view it is that I am a very slow
| thinker, but I've overdeveloped the skill of self-
| investigation. So I can "think fast" by asking myself
| very good questions that quickly cut to the core of where
| my answer would come from. There are often questions or
| problems (especially in the world of engineering) where
| the best thing for me to do is something else and let my
| subconscious do some work on it. It's not that I couldn't
| solve it using "fast brain", it's just that using "slow
| brain" (often diffuse thinking) is more energy efficient.
| Dave_TRS wrote:
| I am an INTP and this resonates with me, but is mostly an issue
| in group settings rather than one on one meetings.
|
| In one-on-one first meetings I naturally participate in the
| back and forth. It's group meetings where I can just listen and
| absorb information that I come off as disengaged and don't make
| a good first impression. The strategy I use to mitigate this
| (suggested by an old boss) is to jump into the conversation
| very early in the meeting with 1 or 2 comments that I wouldn't
| have otherwise felt a need to make. It establishes my voice at
| the table and then I can relax and just process information
| thanatropism wrote:
| I'm the opposite, in a group meeting I can see the camps
| forming and contribute a third view. In a 1-to-1 I don't know
| what your agenda is.
| Dave_TRS wrote:
| That's interesting, in the long run I would say I'm that
| way too, but it'll be toward the end of the meeting after
| things have been hashed out I'd contribute my new
| perspective. Or even worse for first impressions, I'll
| often I'll listen to a whole meeting, continue forming my
| thoughts even after the meeting has ended, and then write a
| well constructed email back to the key people.
|
| I may have figured out a better solution than was possible
| for anyone during the meeting, but by sending it late
| people's impressions during the meetings of me may not be
| the best.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I tend to make good first impressions, I think, because
| typically (in my experience) nothing too in-depth is being
| discussed on the first meeting. It's group
| meetings where I can just listen and absorb
| information that I come off as disengaged and don't
| make a good first impression
|
| This is where I struggle sometimes. IMO/IME if it's
| complicated enough to have a meeting about, then it's
| probably something that deserves some deeper thought.
| Blurting and hashing out a solution right then and there is
| rarely the path to an optimal solution.
|
| But of course, that's not how the world works. Spew out a
| solution right then and there. That's how you get ahead. Who
| cares if it's the best solution? You blurted it out first,
| and that is seen by others as a sign of confidence, and if
| you are confident then you must know what you're talking
| about... right?
|
| God, I need to get out of this industry. Maybe all
| industries.
|
| On a positive note, I do like your mitigation strategy.
| SamPatt wrote:
| How do you know the first impressions people have are negative
| based on speed of response?
|
| I'm often slow to respond and make no effort to change that on
| first impression, but I have been told - many times - that
| people view me as thoughtful and intelligent.
|
| I can't view myself from another's perspective but if you take
| 5 seconds to come up with an answer which is really good, most
| people seem to completely forget the 5 second silence and
| remember the good answer. As you would expect.
|
| Many people's quick replies are poor quality, so a high quality
| reply stands out. This does assume someone can identify the
| difference, but hopefully you're in such an environment.
| starkd wrote:
| Also, people tend to gravitate to a calm self-assured voice.
| The quick reply is more a hallmark of comedians and
| entertainers who need to quickly generate fame and
| popularity. Since the comedian is such a revered figure in
| American culture, perhaps that is why it is easy to try to
| mimic that approach.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Right. If you have the belief that others will value your
| input, regardless of speed, that seems to become a self-
| fulfilling prophecy (assuming that belief is derived from
| genuine previous experience of having created value).
|
| A quick wit is valuable, but not in all situations.
|
| If I'm a bit tipsy then I get less serious and think less
| deeply and respond more quickly and (at least in my mind)
| with more humor, which is great socially, but would be
| terrible in everyday life.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| > You just really need to work on that skill, or accept that it
| will hamper your progress in life.
|
| First impressions are important, but there's a lot more to them
| than just simply being the first one out of the gate with
| something insightful. You can convey your seriousness and
| intent with presence, active listening, facial expressions,
| preparation, poise, etc. It is a projection of what you think
| about yourself, ultimately.
|
| If you're sitting there deliberating over getting the Good
| First Impression, or even just waiting for your turn to speak,
| people are going to pick up on that. Not saying you are, just
| that it is an easy trap to fall into.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I'm INXP and type 5, and one thing that's helped me get around
| this is improvisational comedy. Probably more easy for me
| because I'm on the cusp of T and F so I'm used to not thinking
| all the time, but I imagine it'd still help someone farther on
| the T side of things.
| dorkwood wrote:
| > The real issue for us is first time impressions.
|
| I have a similar problem. Meeting another programmer for the
| first time usually leaves me feeling quite stupid. They'll
| start talking about all sorts of concepts, or how they built
| some particular thing, and I won't be able to follow along at
| all.
|
| The good news is, since their first impression of me is so
| poor, they're often blown away when they see something I spent
| time on. They must be thinking, how did this dingus do that?
| bick_nyers wrote:
| I use a trick I learned from my math advisor. I just say "I'm
| sorry, I'm kind of stupid, what does it mean? Like, what does
| it do?". Sometimes they will overcorrect and REALLY dumb it
| down, but if you can show a higher level insight, they
| usually pick up on it and adjust. You can direct the
| conversation away from abstractions and specific details and
| more towards first principles.
|
| Plus... intellectuals often like to feel smart, so you have
| an opportunity to pump their ego a bit :)
| skylanh wrote:
| I've an established theory that most people will try to pull
| you into a small sub-set of a field or area that they're an
| expert in, and then beat you silly with their knowledge.
|
| This is particularly brutal if they're ego-centric and doing
| it to depress upon you "how smart they are".
|
| I've seen this with quite a few "smart" people.
|
| There are two aspects to this:
|
| 1) talking "smart" - use of phrases, language, and ideas that
| aren't obvious, or using terms that are part of "smart"
|
| 2) small areas of their own knowledge that you are unlikely
| to know.
|
| Examples:
|
| friend would pull me into quantum string theory (M-brains,
| whatever) where they'd memorized certain details of it--they
| weren't particularly smart on quantum string theory, but I
| had zero knowledge. They'd keep turning the topic into these
| areas despite group's conversations not going that way
| naturally.
|
| another casual friend pulled me into the "A Tribe Called Red
| is so good" when I started gushing about my appreciation of
| multi-syllabically rapping styles of lyrical rappers that I
| liked. They were essentially regurgitating a critic's article
| on the topic.
|
| Some internal Microsofters a few decades ago would describe
| that there was internal smart-speak for "smart" identifying
| people. The same is true in most contexts.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| I like to just go along with it, and get them to teach me.
| Accept the idea that they are the expert, and place them
| into a teacher position. If you disagree with a statement
| being made, don't be adversarial, steelman their arguments
| and try get them to explain to you why they are making the
| statement they are making. Either you ignite their passion,
| or they avoid you because you are weirdly too enthusiastic
| about a mechanism they may have been using to overpower
| you.
|
| I had an math professor (NOT the one I am referencing in
| another comment) that was ego-centric and would often
| respond to my incessant questioning with demoralizing (and
| sometimes flat out rude) responses. I just acted completely
| oblivious to the social faux pas and his
| avoidance/adversarial tendencies eventually turned into a
| much more productive relationship. I received the only A in
| the class (he publicly posted everyone's grades).
| skylanh wrote:
| That's a fair point, and I think you're giving a good
| example of a certain context of established-expert wrt
| beginner and how to treat it.
|
| FWIW, I had a friend indicate that because (tenured?)
| teaching positions are such high demand, that the
| available candidates can be significantly high caliber.
| So that might have played into why the math professor was
| adversarial initially.
|
| The area I've found the depress-to-impress used was
| usually in peer contexts and didn't have any teachable
| outcomes, unfortunately. They're regurgitating material
| that they have better familiarity with, but probably
| unable to ad-lib off their "beat path".
| bick_nyers wrote:
| That makes sense. I think this specific professor also
| wanted to do research and perhaps disliked teaching, but
| was required to do it. I could be misinterpreting though.
|
| With the peers thing I just view it as we all have our
| pathologies, and some people just feel the need to be
| perceived as smart (usually some kind of insecurity).
| Sometimes it can just be too much though and you can get
| the feeling that you are walking on eggshells around
| them, perhaps not to trigger a judgement of you on their
| part.
| starkd wrote:
| Elon Musk also tends to take long pauses when he answers a
| question. I thought it was odd the first time I saw it. Almost
| like he is looking it up on an internal interface or something.
| Not sure if this is done intentionally or a style that he has
| developed.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| I was studying body language a few years back, and learned
| about what particular eye movements often correspond to
| thinking-wise. A fun exercise that I did was I watched some
| of Elon's interviews but I tried to contextualize EVERYTHING
| he said with his eye movements alone. When viewing from this
| lens, you can glean a lot of interesting information. A basic
| example: For right handed people, looking up and to the right
| often means they are tapping into their imagination, whereas
| up and to the left is memory. You can basically plot a chart
| of how engaged Elon is throughout his interview/talks, and
| know what responses he has that are pre-canned and what parts
| of those responses are more rehearsed than other parts.
|
| Some decent summaries can be found here:
| https://www.scienceofpeople.com/read-people-eyes/#5-eye-
| dire...
| visviva wrote:
| As someone whose current job puts me into a lot of somewhat
| contextless meetings with peers, I've noticed this is an issue
| for me as well. Could you share any other specific strategies
| you've come across for this?
| sneak wrote:
| MBTI are pseudoscience (just like astrology); there is no such
| thing as an INTP no matter how much you may feel to be
| described by the type.
| MadSudaca wrote:
| I disagree. There's no casual pathway between Astrology and
| who you are. With MBTI you respond to a questionnaire, so
| there is some connection to you. How accurate this is, well
| that's a topic for debate. However, the most accurate
| personality models are also based on questionnaires of this
| sort.
|
| Some time ago I also thought MBTI was bullshit, now I think
| it's quite useful. And at least for me, anecdotally, has
| predictive power.
| sneak wrote:
| > _How accurate this is, well that's a topic for debate._
|
| Not really; we know for a fact it is not accurate (and thus
| irrelevant). You can debate it if you wish but the facts of
| the matter have been long settled.
| bovermyer wrote:
| OK, I'll bite. Not so much because I'm a defender of
| Myers-Briggs, but because there are significant problems
| with your two sentences here.
|
| > we know
|
| Who knows? Who is "we?"
|
| > it is not accurate
|
| Accuracy is not either "PERFECTLY TRUE" or "PERFECTLY
| FALSE." It is a range.
|
| > (and thus irrelevant)
|
| Even false statements or frameworks can provide
| interesting insights into how we think about a domain.
|
| > the facts of the matter
|
| Which facts would that be?
|
| > have been long settled
|
| By whom? In what study or paper? Were they properly
| tested?
| jiggunjer wrote:
| Accuracy isn't binary. Not being perfect doesn't mean it
| is irrelevant. My map of the city could be more accurate
| but it still gets me where I need to go.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| It doesn't matter how we define accuracy, I argue
| relevancy comes into play moreso when they stated this
| model is useful, making accuracy a non-issue, even if
| that's not what their exact words.
| DarkNova6 wrote:
| That's only in regards to the questionnaire, not the
| underlying system.
|
| If you understand the cognitive function, your prediction
| is a magnitude more accurate than any test.
| MadSudaca wrote:
| Depends on how you define accuracy.
| paulcole wrote:
| > Some time ago I also thought MBTI was bullshit, now I
| think it's quite useful. And at least for me, anecdotally,
| has predictive power.
|
| Replace MBTI w/ astrology in this sentence.
|
| And just like astrology, you _want_ MBTI to be true so it
| influences your answers on the questionnaire. Kinda like a
| Ouija board.
| MadSudaca wrote:
| The desire for your beliefs to be true also affects
| scientists and biases the scientific enterprise. That
| doesn't mean science is not reliable. Same applies here.
| The bias exists, it doesn't mean that the results are
| useless.
| paulcole wrote:
| > The bias exists, it doesn't mean that the results are
| useless.
|
| The same can be said of astrology even though it's not
| science.
| pegasus wrote:
| The opposite effect (generated by one wanting astrology
| to be false - and there are plenty of reasons for that
| inclination also) might also be afoot.
| tpoacher wrote:
| MBTI and things like INTP are 'definitions'.
|
| Trying to make business decisions on the basis of MBTI
| metrics, which is what it is often criticised for, is of
| course misguided.
|
| But saying "MBTI is pseudoscience you cannot be INTP" makes
| as much sense as "Hair colour names are unscientific, so you
| can't identify as blond".
|
| Sure you can. It's a description. I wouldn't go ascribing
| intelligence on the basis of hair colour, but I wouldn't
| doubt you have a hair colour either.
|
| And if you've found commonalities / common experiences and
| like being with other blond people, that's fine too.
| nemetroid wrote:
| The initial sentence of the original comment is the
| pseudoscientific part.
|
| > That's a typical INTP / type 5 enneagram brain wiring.
| nicoburns wrote:
| The MBTI is descriptive. However, it claims to be
| descriptive of _internal mental processes_ , which it
| posits to exist in a certain way (admittedly not everything
| interprets the MBTI this way, but IMO this is the only
| interpretation under which the MBTI is an interesting
| theory).
|
| I'm personally quite open to the idea that it's an accurate
| categorisation, but I do also think that it's an
| extroadinary claim that requires extroadinary
| justification. IMO saying "oh, it's just a description"
| because that evidence hasn't (yet) been found is a bit of a
| cop out.
| flippinburgers wrote:
| Lets be real though. Nobody just stops at they are INTP.
| This is the kind of thing that corporate busybodies in HR -
| or something related - will use to evaluate people.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Their competitor mainstream psychology was fathered and
| dominated for a long time by Sigmund Freud. His success
| probably had more to do to his nephew Edward Bernays and the
| yearly exclusive balls for the elites than anything
| scientific. Now there is Nudge Theory which is marred by the
| replication crisis and repeat fabricators; hardly scientific
| (though more common in academia than it should be) but it
| tells governments what they want to hear so it'll stay
| successful until the flaws are too obvious to ignore (note
| that I don't follow the field overly closely).
|
| The MBTI is just a projection of the personality space like
| the more accepted Big 5. From my experience data-mining
| behavioral data at scale it's a pretty good mapping and the
| relative value questions are adequate and the 4 dimensions do
| explain a lot of behavior to the point that it is very useful
| - a fact probability contributing to its success. My main
| gripe with it is the extrovert - introvert axis is a bit weak
| with many people being close to the middle. I'm more
| extroverted around intelligent people which doesn't happen as
| often as I'd like, a trait held by far more commonly by
| ENTJ/INTJ than random chance.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| I was uncomfortable with my social anxiety and introversion
| for much of my teens/early 20's, until I had the liberating
| realization that I was actually extremely extraverted
| around people similar to me. I am just bored with the
| "average" person with "typical" smalltalk, and that's ok
| because those just aren't my people. Of course, it's
| probably best to find some ways to cope with those
| situations, but accepting that "normal" people don't need
| to like me was very freeing.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > My main gripe with it is the extrovert - introvert axis
| is a bit weak with many people being close to the middle
|
| I think that's partly because people don't understand what
| extraverted vs. introverted _mean_ in the MBTI sense. It 's
| not about sociability. It's actually about how much
| external stimuli someone likes more generally. This might
| be social stimuli (Fe), but it could also be physical
| stimuli (Se) (for example, liking being physically active
| or out in nature) or more conceptual stimuli / external
| ideas (Ne), etc. Or a computing analogy: what's your ratio
| of IO to CPU time.
|
| Also, at least in the cognitive function interpretation
| (which IMO is the only sensible theory in the jungian/mbti
| family), introversion and extraversion do _not_ apply
| directly to persons. They apply to thinking processes. An
| extraverted person is then just a person who uses an
| extraverted thinking mode more often than not (everyone is
| theorised to use both extraverted and introverted thinking
| modes). As you note this bias can be more or less extreme.
|
| Indeed, it's been observed that it can both be influenced
| by external factors (e.g. social expectations), and that it
| tends to become less extreme over time. As such, a persons
| "type" is generally considered to be determined by what
| their preference was in childhood, and (the type) is taken
| to define their baseline personality (cf. genotype) from
| which their actually observable personality (cf phenotype)
| develops.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| That's a good point, reading Carl Jung is in my todo
| list. I generated an personality embedding from data and
| only mapped it to MBTI and the Big 5 out of personal
| curiosity rather than using it for work. The main
| surprise I got from that work was just how genetic
| personalities are.
|
| It would make sense that the E/I axis would be clearer if
| early childhood experiences were used. That would make me
| a clear extrovert. I think the questions should be
| updated for that context or at least have some additional
| framing around the test.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > The main surprise I got from that work was just how
| genetic personalities are.
|
| This idea was surprising to me too, but when I thought
| about it I realised it shouldn't be:
|
| - We know that different people frequently react
| differently to the same stimuli (and that this is true
| even of very young children).
|
| - Basically everything else in the human body shows
| genetic variation. It would be weird if the brain didn't.
|
| - There is a strong evolutionary rationale for a
| population having a variety of complimentary congnitive
| styles.
|
| I think the MBTI is most interesting is it taken to be
| only the genetic component of personality (providing us
| with AFAIK the only theory of the structure of that
| aspect of personality), while simultaneously leaning into
| the idea that personality _is_ modified by nurture and
| environment (but that these changes are not described by
| one 's MBTI type).
| mistermann wrote:
| > That's a good point, reading Carl Jung is in my todo
| list. I generated an personality embedding from data and
| only mapped it to MBTI and the Big 5 out of personal
| curiosity rather than using it for work. The main
| surprise I got from that work was just how genetic
| personalities are.
|
| Could you possibly expand on the details of "generated an
| personality embedding from data"?
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| The data was a huge amount of complete url history and
| quite a lot of feature engineering goes into developing
| the features. Mix of Gaussian processes, random forests,
| GDBT, and a lot of hand coded stuff using regexes and
| state machines. To get the embedding the features were
| fed into a multi layered RBM auto encoder. Despite quick
| initial success of the embedding I was unable to
| evangelize deep learning to the org and left out of
| frustration. Andrew Ng, before he was famous, visited us
| to evangelize deep learning and my colleagues just
| berated him with their views about how much better
| Bayesian is, it was embarrassing.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| The "stimuli someone likes more generally" is doing a lot
| of the work here. I feel like it would be a much more
| powerful metric if it was separated into different
| contexts, e.g. are you an extravert with friends but an
| introvert with regard to the average person?
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Cool, you're pointing out something many also agree, but how
| exactly is your comment even remotely constructive? There's
| much more in OP's comment than Myers-Briggs.
| nicoburns wrote:
| MBTI differs significantly from astrology in that it's
| posited mechanism of action (genetics/early life experiences)
| is actually plausible, unlike astrology which suggests that
| differences in personality are due to astral bodies. It's
| pretty unsurprising that we're unable to measure the
| cognitive processes the MBTI posits given how limited our
| ability is to measure the brain in general. So I wouldn't
| count it out just because there's no experimental evidence
| (yet).
|
| I've been able to observe the difference between what the
| MBTI calls "Judgement" (slow thinking) and what the MBTI
| calls "Perception" (fast thinking) in real life. The example
| I always give is my high school "Further Maths" class. There
| were 4 people in my class and it happened that we always
| ended up working in pairs. However the way in which each pair
| worked was entirely different:
|
| - Pair 1 (me and my partner) worked independently, rushing
| through the questions by intuiting answers to each step. We'd
| then compare answers as a kind of checksum. If our answers
| differed, often one of us would immediately notice a mistake.
| And if not then we'd fall back to slowly working through the
| problem together step-by-step.
|
| - Pair 2 (the other two students) defaulted to this approach
| of slowly working through each problem step-by-step together.
| This took longer up front, but produced more accurate
| answers.
|
| Interesting, both approaches actually ended up taking a
| similar amount of time overall and yielding a similar
| accuracy of answer. But there is a huge qualitative
| difference in the kind of thinking that took place in each
| approach, and each person in the class also demonstrated a
| clear and stable preferrence for a specific approach.
|
| There is also a vast body of literature on "Dual-process
| theories" like this one, popularised by Daniel Kahneman's
| book Thinking Fast and Slow.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| unlike astrology which suggests that differences in
| personality are due to astral bodies
|
| Tangential, but: I wonder if astrology might have been
| accidentally correct in some ways.
|
| Clearly astrological bodies have no actual influence on us.
| I'm not _that_ crazy.
|
| However, mightn't the time of year of birth have a big
| influence? The amount of sunlight received, activities
| undertaken, and foods eaten by the expectant mother and
| newborn baby will vary based on time of year. The
| differences may be minor today, but would have been pretty
| profound in antiquity.
|
| Imagine being born two thousand years ago in the northern
| latitudes during the deep winter. Mother and child
| experience six months of darkness, eating preserved and
| salted foods. Now imagine the opposite. You are born during
| summer. Mother and child get lots of sunlight and fresh
| food. Surely there are effects! I think it would be
| surprising if there were none.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Astrology is almost certainly right in _some_ respects (a
| stopped clock is right twice a day after all). Other than
| time of birth thing, I suspect some of the personality
| traits astrology describes are genuinely traits that
| humans can have (although, I 'm not actually familiar
| with what astrology describes), they just don't correlate
| to birthdate/planet as claimed. Astrology was after all
| created by humans are familiar with human behaviour.
|
| Regarding birth date, I would speculate that one of the
| most significant effects it has on modern children is how
| far through the school year they are born (and thus
| whether they are one of the older children or one of the
| younger children in their cohort). As you say, it's
| likely that there's some effect. I personally somewhat
| doubt it's causes differences in personality anywhere
| near as drastic the kind that astrology claims.
| bombolo wrote:
| > So I wouldn't count it out just because there's no
| experimental evidence
|
| That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with
| no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin
| to doing astrology.
|
| I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves
| in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is
| quite similar to that.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis
| with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is
| akin to doing astrology.
|
| Sure, but you can discuss it as theory without implying
| that it's proven fact. Most (if not all?) theories that
| are now considered scientific fact initially went through
| a period where they were lacking in conclusive
| experimental evidence.
|
| > I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize
| themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their
| personality. This is quite similar to that.
|
| I am. And that's why I think the plausibility of the
| theory is important. There's a difference between saying
| "people think in way A and way B" and "whether people
| think in way A or way B is determined by the position of
| the planets at the time they were born".
|
| I guess I would say that it's not quite true that there's
| no experimental evidence. It's more the case that the
| academic discipline "experimental psychology" has failed
| to find evidence. Other disciplines like cognitive
| science and behavioural economics tend not to have
| studied the MBTI specifically, but have found
| experimental evidence for theories that are substantially
| similar enough to the MBTI's hypotheses that IMO they do
| count as some evidence.
|
| Specifically there is experimental evidence that:
|
| - There are qualitatively different ways in which people
| can think and process information.
|
| - People can have a stable preference for a given
| thinking process. And that such preferences follow a
| bimodal distribution.
|
| - People can have a preference towards either
| introversion or extraversion (MBTI's I vs. E distinction)
|
| - People can think either in a "Fast" way (fast,
| intuitive, perceptually inaccesible) or a "Slow" way
| (slow, reasoned, perceptually accesible) (MBTI's J vs. P
| distinction)
|
| That's evidence for ~50% of the MBTI already, and would
| leave "Feeling" vs. "Thinking" (value judgement vs.
| descriptive judgement) and "Sensing" vs. "Intiuton"
| (concrete vs. abstract thinking) as interesting research
| questions.
| Tainnor wrote:
| The test-retest reliability of the test is bad, meaning
| that people who retest very often get different scores.
|
| I think this is a very good indicator that the whole
| thing is bogus.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I always get damn near the middle of the chart, on both
| axes.
|
| But I think this confirms your claim in my case. For
| nearly every single answer on the test, my response is
| "it depends." I really could go either way on nearly
| every single question because I need more context.
|
| It makes me think the whole test is essentially BS, kind
| of like a horoscope where you can read whatever you want
| into it.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Yeah, the test isn't really very accurate. And if you're
| getting close on both axes that mean the test is actually
| telling you it isn't sure! (this _doesn 't_ mean your
| personality is actually close - it means the test doesn't
| know).
|
| There are better tests (like this one
| https://sakinorva.net/functions) which will give you a
| confidence percentage for each cognitive function rather
| than just a best guess overall type. But none of them are
| that great, and currently the gold standard for
| determining type is to only use the test results as
| starting to point and to familiarise yourself with the
| theory to fine tune that, potentially with the guidance
| of an type expert.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I'm of the opinion that the test itself is bogus, but
| that the theory it is attempting to test has merit and is
| worthy of investigation with better tests. Test-retest
| reliability doesn't distibguish between those two
| possibilities.
| [deleted]
| ayewo wrote:
| What do you make of DiSC then?
|
| https://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc
| a3w wrote:
| MBTI are pseudoscience -> This. It absolutely fails to make
| predictions, except that people who describe themselves as
| liking to think are people who like to think, and other
| obvious ideas. It is very hyped in actual application,
| though. As is homeopathy and astrology.
|
| <edit> Big Five Personality traits and the HEXACO model
| exist, and they seem to have more a more positive scientific
| review history. "Your boss is probably someone more likely to
| have qualities from the dark triad" is still bad news when
| looking at the real world versus an ideal world, but this
| seems to be a checked fact. </edit>
|
| There is some evidence to suggest that the Myers-Briggs Type
| Indicator (MBTI) may not be as reliable and valid as its
| proponents suggest. In fact, some studies have found that the
| MBTI does not consistently yield the same results for
| individuals who take it multiple times, which raises
| questions about its reproducibility and the reliability of
| the results.
|
| For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality
| and Social Psychology found that only about half of
| individuals who took the MBTI twice received the same result
| both times. This suggests that the MBTI may not be a reliable
| measure of personality traits.
|
| In addition, other studies have found that the MBTI does not
| reliably predict job performance or other real-world
| outcomes, further questioning its validity as a psychological
| assessment tool.
| nicoburns wrote:
| The questionaire is bullshit (how on earth would we expect
| to measure thinking processes through a questionaire), but
| the underlying theory is a lot more interesting.
|
| It's terms (like "thinking") are technical jargon that
| don't correspond to their usual meanings though. For
| example "thinking" is really "descriptive judegement"
| (cognition focussed on whether things are
| true/false/possible/impossible), to be contrasted with
| "feeling" (which is actually also a rational cognitive
| process!) just focussed on "value judgement" (cognition
| focussed on whether things are good/bad/should
| happen/shouldn't happen).
|
| It is also not supposed to measure personality traits in
| the same sense that other models do. It is two steps
| removed:
|
| 1. It attempts to measure interal cognitive processes
| rather than external behavoural traits (how you think, not
| what you think)
|
| 2. It attempts to measure people's natural personality
| baseline (cf genotype) from which their actual personality
| (cf phenotype) develops as modified by their life
| experiences and the context in which they live.
|
| Both of which make it even more difficult to measure with a
| questionaire that tends to only ask about current
| behaviours. But IMO also make it a much more interesting
| _and_ much more plausible theory.
| Zurrrrr wrote:
| It's not just a pseudoscience, it's a cult.
| callesgg wrote:
| It's a categorical system. It categorises people in to groups
| on dimensions. Dimensions that are ultimately defined by the
| questions that give the category.
|
| You can measure people on many dimensions, and all dimensions
| that are not truly random will correlate with some aspect of
| the persons life.
|
| Interestingly, some of the dimensions of the MTBI correlate
| with dimensions of the "Big 5".
|
| Introversion - Extroversion => Almost the same dimension as
| in Big 5.
|
| Intuitive - Sensation => Correlate strongly to Big 5 Openness
|
| The longer textual descriptions of the MTBI categories that
| one can find online are "made up" so they could indeed be
| said to be a type of pseudoscience.
| mettamage wrote:
| > "it's my first impression, no need to be so precise, just say
| something silly and light-hearted.", because that's what most
| people typically expect.
|
| This
|
| I told a friend of mine that whenever he goes on a first date.
| Whatever she asks, if it's within the first 10 minutes, say
| something that is clearly a non-serious answer. Don't say
| anything serious in the first 10 minutes. After that, feel free
| to be yourself. Since he's very serious, this helped to balance
| him out a bit, especially because his first impression was so
| different.
|
| "What kind of work do you do?"
|
| "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which I
| know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans just
| be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock culture, well
| you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the electric guitar is
| their preferred instrument of choice. So rocks wanna be thrown,
| but only by other rocks, not by humans. I know, it's weird, I'm
| a bit of an exception but that's also because I grew up with
| parents that rocked and then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson
| also was a famous rock throwing coach."
|
| I just made that up, but stuff like that. Key to that is also
| knowing when to pause and be fully willing to be imperfect.
|
| I need to do something similar. I'm also too serious and too
| thinkey for the normal world. Fortunately, I have a huge
| imagination too, so I just show that first by being not serious
| at all :)
|
| I've thought about the whole "being yourself" thing versus
| deviating from it for the first 10 minutes, but I figured if
| putting up a bit of an act (that you enjoy yourself as well)
| for 10 minutes changes people's impression much more positively
| of you and then you can fully drop it and be yourself, then
| it's fine.
| glitchc wrote:
| > "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which
| I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans
| just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock
| culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the
| electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So
| rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by
| humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but
| that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and
| then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock
| throwing coach."
|
| Buried somewhere in that pile is a nugget of comedy gold.
| silveroriole wrote:
| And I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, should
| piles be able to bury nuggets? No! But in nugget culture,
| well you gotta nugget as a nugget.
| Zurrrrr wrote:
| > "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which
| I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans
| just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock
| culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the
| electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So
| rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by
| humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but
| that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and
| then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock
| throwing coach."
|
| > I just made that up, but stuff like that.
|
| Maybe not quite like that...
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I am not going to say anything really new here, but since I am
| living in US, I am going to cover American aspect. From my
| perspective, culture is to blame for this.
|
| It does not matter what you do, but everyone expects an answer
| for anything yesterday. All sales are structured to pressure you
| into making a decision as soon as possible to prevent any kind of
| critical considerations ( on the off-chance you will come to your
| senses ). It is bad enough that when I am visiting doctors, they,
| too, try to structure their patients to a smallest window
| possible ( and I sure as fuck can't really process the
| information in seconds -- for numerous reasons including the
| obvious one: I don't have the medical background ).
|
| The last straw for me was purchasing my new car with wife ( she
| was rushing me, because she just wanted it to be over with while
| I was going through the steps to see what I like, don't like, see
| reviews and so on ).
|
| The whole culture is nuts and not helpful to anyone who thinks
| carefully about their next steps. For me, it took forever to
| simply say 'no, stop'. Granted, you can't always do that (
| meetings likely being a good example, but it is not like a
| decision always has to be taken in those -- maybe it can be
| postponed if you think you can take the pressure of being 'that
| guy everyone waits on' ).
| giardini wrote:
| My father said, when he asked for advice, his American Indian
| friends might ponder a serious question at considerable length
| (even months). He called it "Indian thinking" and said it always
| proved worth the wait. He learned that the reluctance to provide
| a quick answer was an indicator that he should not rush to
| judgement.
| pcurve wrote:
| I'm like this. This makes me useless during post it note
| brainstorming exercise with time limit. Lol
| pongo1231 wrote:
| Same here. Also any kind of thoughtful discourse where I might
| promptly answer with a basic filler response but then think of
| an actual reply after the conversation ended already.
| bovermyer wrote:
| I am like this.
|
| In elementary school, there was a math game we would play. A
| student would stand up and move next to the desk of the next
| student in the row. The teacher would ask a math question -
| "What's 4 times 4?" - and the student who answered correctly
| first would move on, and the other one would sit in the desk. I
| would _always_ lose, because while I was always right, it would
| take me several seconds longer than the other student.
|
| I'm an ENFP.
| tzhenghao wrote:
| I can relate with author. It takes me a while to actually
| synthesize questions thrown at me, and sometimes I look like a
| fool staring back silently but I'm enumerating through a bunch of
| responses in my head. Ultimately, it's like a chess game where I
| don't instinctively make a move just yet.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| >Thinking, Fast and Slow
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp...
| jstx1 wrote:
| It's not the same thing. In the book "fast" and "slow" refer to
| two distinct modes of thinking, it's not about speed in the way
| the author of the post is describing.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| People sometimes tell me I explain or write well. That's usually
| because I don't understand the thing I am dealing with and have
| to explain them to myself. And I want to really understand which
| can make me seem "slow".
| Loughla wrote:
| This is me. Once I hit college I was told how good of a formal
| and technical writer I am. How clear and concise my technical
| points were, and how easy to understand I could make even super
| abstract technical knowledge.
|
| It's because I am secretly afraid that I'm dumb and I re-work
| everything difficult I encounter multiple times inside my own
| head. You people just get to see the distilled version of like
| 15 re-writes to make sure I actually understand what I'm
| talking about and that I'm not just working for Dunning-Kruger
| Incorporated.
| exhaze wrote:
| You can be both. I used to identify with author. Then I was
| forced to get into "sales" (dating, pitching a startup, hiring,
| literally sales, etc.).
|
| I think it's good have basic competence at both and not develop
| this IMHO odd "slow thinker" mentality.
|
| Even though I can sometimes make quick "gut decisions" about
| stuff, I still often tell people: "Let me take a walk and think
| about this".
|
| Then I take a walk and think about it.
| jwmoz wrote:
| Surely if you have the knowledge and experience you can think
| relatively fast. If not then obviously you need time to research
| and form an opinion. Two different things.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-06 23:02 UTC)