My own efficiency ranking : - genuine dialog between 2 peers with overlapping knowledge on the topic, both being kind, patient, open-minded yet critical, able

My own efficiency ranking : - genuine dialog between 2 peers with overlapping knowledge on the topic, both being kind, patient, open-minded yet critical, able to point flaws in reasoning or provenance without being hurtful - genuine dialog between 2 peers with overlapping knowledge on the topic - genuine dialog between 2 peers - genuine dialog between 2 persons - thinking out loud in front of someone listening - thinking out loud alone thinking of someone listening - thinking out loud alone The "trick" here, and that's why I wanted to write it down, is that having an actual person, real or imaginary, does force one to actually explain. A typical fallacy is the "proof left out to the student" which actually happens to be terribly complex or even infeasible. I believe trying to explain to someone forces you to identify the gap into their knowledge and your point. It's precisely mapping where knowledge does NOT overlap. So instead of making a lot of assumptions they have to be laid out, at the very least made in part explicit. Doing so forces you to stop skimming parts that are challenging for you. The part that you might not feel so sure. Obviously the whole problem is that this peer, who is both knowledgeable and kind is good in their field and popular, thus busy. Consequently their time is very VERY precious. Hopefully you yourself are that peer. That means that often we have to go down the list and find the next best person. So... I do think duck debugging is better if you genuinely trust in the kindness of the duck, not see it as a piece of plastic ;)