4 ms·

As other commenters have mentioned, I’ve noticed that people generally tend to fall into one of two groups: those who think out loud and those who process inter

As other commenters have mentioned, I’ve noticed that people generally tend to fall into one of two groups: those who think out loud and those who process internally. (And I don’t know if it’s a coincidence or not, but almost all of the managers I have had in my career have been the former.) I tend to think internally, and while I usually have a clear vision in my head of how a system works, if I try to translate that mental model on-the-fly into an explanation for others, it typically comes out as an incoherent jumble of loosely related phrases. To that extent, I much prefer written communication. It gives me time to convert the thoughts in my head into English, and I typically iterate on what I’ve written down quite a few times until I’m satisfied with it (including Hacker News comments for example). The one exception to being a “slow thinker” is if the discussion involves a topic I know very well and someone says something that is incorrect or inconsistent. While I can’t necessarily articulate my own ideas immediately on the spot, I do seem to be able to quickly identify and explain flaws in deductive reasoning or come up with examples that highlight inconsistencies. I’m not sure I necessarily like that my brain defaults to looking for flaws in arguments rather than reasons to support them, but my own internal process of generating ideas consists of a cycle of proposing an idea to myself followed by immediately trying to find ways to shoot it down (such that whatever ideas survive this mental gauntlet are decent ones I guess). But I think this approach had the unfortunate side effect of optimizing the “quick thinking” part of my brain into that of an inconsistency-detector rather than a rapid brainstorming mechanism.

gopher2000 3y ago
> if I try to translate that mental model on-the-fly into an explanation for others, it typically comes out as an incoherent jumble of loosely related phrases In software engineering, I've found that this is very common. And if I look at what successful senior engineers have in common, it's that they've mastered a way to present complex technical information in a way that's easily understood. It's a super power.
Leftium 3y ago
> my brain defaults to looking for flaws in arguments rather than reasons to support them May be due to how reasoning is a social activity humans evolved to save time and cognitive load via division of labor. 1. An individual's reasoning workload is reduced by forming a bias. The gaps left by this bias can be filled with others' reasoning. For example if Gail focuses on why a business idea is good and Bob focuses on why that same idea is bad, they reduced the total amount of reasoning required by 50%. 2. If strong reasons are always prepared for everything, effort is wasted when others are easy to convince. So people start with minimal effort, producing weak reasons (why the business idea is good or bad). Gail and Bob keep responding to each other's reasons with stronger reasons only until necessary. After reaching consensus further reasoning is not required. Source: https://youtu.be/_ArVh3Cj9rw?t=969 https://youtu.be/_ArVh3Cj9rw?t=969
frumiousirc 3y ago
> I tend to think internally, and while I usually have a clear vision in my head of how a system works, if I try to translate that mental model on-the-fly into an explanation for others, it typically comes out as an incoherent jumble of loosely related phrases. Just a thank you for describing what is my own self perception. I thought I was a broken weirdo. Well, maybe I still am, but at least I'm not alone!

gopher2000 3y ago

> if I try to translate that mental model on-the-fly into an explanation for others, it typically comes out as an incoherent jumble of loosely related phrases In software engineering, I've found that this is very common. And if I look at what successful senior engineers have in common, it's that they've mastered a way to present complex technical information in a way that's easily understood. It's a super power.

Leftium 3y ago

> my brain defaults to looking for flaws in arguments rather than reasons to support them May be due to how reasoning is a social activity humans evolved to save time and cognitive load via division of labor. 1. An individual's reasoning workload is reduced by forming a bias. The gaps left by this bias can be filled with others' reasoning. For example if Gail focuses on why a business idea is good and Bob focuses on why that same idea is bad, they reduced the total amount of reasoning required by 50%. 2. If strong reasons are always prepared for everything, effort is wasted when others are easy to convince. So people start with minimal effort, producing weak reasons (why the business idea is good or bad). Gail and Bob keep responding to each other's reasons with stronger reasons only until necessary. After reaching consensus further reasoning is not required. Source: https://youtu.be/_ArVh3Cj9rw?t=969 https://youtu.be/_ArVh3Cj9rw?t=969

frumiousirc 3y ago

> I tend to think internally, and while I usually have a clear vision in my head of how a system works, if I try to translate that mental model on-the-fly into an explanation for others, it typically comes out as an incoherent jumble of loosely related phrases. Just a thank you for describing what is my own self perception. I thought I was a broken weirdo. Well, maybe I still am, but at least I'm not alone!