3 ms·

Agree - I find that I never really have a good answer on the spot, but I often have already been thinking about the problems around the workplace for long enoug

Agree - I find that I never really have a good answer on the spot, but I often have already been thinking about the problems around the workplace for long enough that I at least have a hunch or opinion. That's not quick-wit, it's just pre-thinking. But it works well enough for me. One skill I learned during grad school was spending lots of time going over conversations or presentations or even upcoming meetings in your head. This "warms up" your cache, and helps you play out possible Q&A, so that you have more opinions ready. And another skill I learned was actually learning to control the meeting to a certain extent. I'd come in with something like a limited "choose your own adventure" conversation tree in my head, and then I'd try to present choices or questions to those I was meeting or talking with, so that I could at least have a fallback. And finally with experience comes wit. The 10th time you enter a situation you're much more likely to have something to say than the 1st time. And eventually, you'll start to recognize similarities in conversations. But yeah, lack of quick wit makes social and work situations more challenging. It's just hard to make myself have strong opinions on the spot usually.

another-dave 3y ago
> Agree - I find that I never really have a good answer on the spot, but I often have already been thinking about the problems around the workplace for long enough that I at least have a hunch or opinion. That's not quick-wit, it's just pre-thinking. But it works well enough for me. I did debating in school and a lot of the prep was like this too — once you have your position sketched out, you put on your 'opposition hat' and start to critique your own position for holes. Also, where in the HN guidelines it says — Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. — when you're prepping, you tend to do just the opposite: assume that someone _is_ going to attempt to respond to a weaker version that's easier to criticize. It can help you have a rebuttal on the ready if needed but regardless it also helps you to distill/reframe ideas in a way that's clearer from the outset (which is a good thing in & of itself, even if you don't have someone taking a counter position)
- replwoacause 3y ago
  What happens if your working memory is so poor that by the time you’ve put on your opposition hat to scrutinize your original position, your brain is out of bandwidth and it forgets the details of original position, or it can’t scrutinize that position because there isn’t enough bandwidth to hold both the original idea and the counter position simultaneously? So now you’ve got a counter argument to a now forgotten original position. Just wondering.
  - another-dave 3y ago
    Your alignment has shifted and you've gone from lawful good to chaotic good :) As a serious answer, just make liberal use of notes.
    - replwoacause 3y ago
      Haha… Yes, I was being a bit cheeky but you’re right, in a case like this using notes is indeed the answer perhaps like Nathan Fielder in the show The Rehearsal, if you’re looking for a ridiculous and extreme example!

another-dave 3y ago

> Agree - I find that I never really have a good answer on the spot, but I often have already been thinking about the problems around the workplace for long enough that I at least have a hunch or opinion. That's not quick-wit, it's just pre-thinking. But it works well enough for me. I did debating in school and a lot of the prep was like this too — once you have your position sketched out, you put on your 'opposition hat' and start to critique your own position for holes. Also, where in the HN guidelines it says — Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. — when you're prepping, you tend to do just the opposite: assume that someone _is_ going to attempt to respond to a weaker version that's easier to criticize. It can help you have a rebuttal on the ready if needed but regardless it also helps you to distill/reframe ideas in a way that's clearer from the outset (which is a good thing in & of itself, even if you don't have someone taking a counter position)

replwoacause 3y ago
What happens if your working memory is so poor that by the time you’ve put on your opposition hat to scrutinize your original position, your brain is out of bandwidth and it forgets the details of original position, or it can’t scrutinize that position because there isn’t enough bandwidth to hold both the original idea and the counter position simultaneously? So now you’ve got a counter argument to a now forgotten original position. Just wondering.
- another-dave 3y ago
  Your alignment has shifted and you've gone from lawful good to chaotic good :) As a serious answer, just make liberal use of notes.
  - replwoacause 3y ago
    Haha… Yes, I was being a bit cheeky but you’re right, in a case like this using notes is indeed the answer perhaps like Nathan Fielder in the show The Rehearsal, if you’re looking for a ridiculous and extreme example!