Ask HN: Slow thinkers, how do you compensate for your lack of quick-wittedness? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Slow thinkers, how do you compensate for your lack of quick-wittedness?

427 pointsmichalu269 comments

Slow thinking HN members, what are some strategies you've use to overcome and compensate for the lack of quick thinking.

E.g. I found I'm great at analysis or putting together elaborate argument but if I'm in a situation where I need to make a quick decision or get in actual argument I lose all of that capacity and usually drop to the level of IQ 85 if I/m to be judged by the outcomes. Nevertheless a slow thinker does have that potential there he's jut not able to tap into it if he falls into my category. In martial arts, rehearsing overcomes a lot of that - what has worked in real life for you?

View on HN

This is something that's easy to have an opinion on so you're going to get buried.

I'll do my best to make a high-signal comment here, but it will be drowned by all the other replies, which also likely touch on these points.

First, "slow-thinking" is really just a different way of expressing your thinking and you should begin by leaning into it rather than leaning away. Take time, allow yourself to pause to collect your thoughts. People often interpret quietness (not filler) as intelligence and maturity (because usually it is). Alternatively not answering is also valid.

Second, as a person who is generally regarded as quick-witted and sharp, most of that sharpness comes from either having a few pre-known responses to ideas or anxiously revising situations in my head ahead of time. This is, generally, a bad thing because it means I have made decisions on how I will respond to things without all of the information (as some will come over during conversation). Methodically thinking things through, fresh, is probably the only realistic way to be open minded.

Finally, do your best to avoid situations where a "quick decision" is needed; this is good advice even for "quick thinkers". Fast decisions are often poor ones - the counterpoint to that is dragging something out over many weeks or across many meetings - but putting yourself in a situation where the unknowns become knowns or the scope of the landscape and weight of the decision can be properly assessed is important. What's better is that you will likely be able to have a better paper trail for this.

One absolutely final piece of advice: Avoid using the word "slow", use "deliberate" instead.

> Finally, do your best to avoid situations where a "quick decision" is needed; this is good advice even for "quick thinkers". Fast decisions are often poor ones - the counterpoint to that is dragging something out over many weeks or across many meetings - but putting yourself in a situation where the unknowns become knowns or the scope of the landscape and weight of the decision can be properly assessed is important. What's better is that you will likely be able to have a better paper trail for this.

If you have to make a 'quick decision', one of the pieces of advice I've heard is to try to make the smallest possible good decision that will move the ball forward. Often getting started is enough to provide more information needed to make a better long term decision, but making the best possible, smallest decision will rarely get you into trouble.

This seems like it is tapping into the same risk management strategy as in Agile methods? Essentially allowing for more frequent course correction. I assume "small" here blurs together cost and latency .

The tradeoff of this kind of incremental planning and execution is that it becomes more reactive and myopic. You can end up stuck at a local maxima or worse, just executing a random walk.

I think a large part of becoming "quick" in an effective way is to improve your triage skills. This is a meta-decision process where you quickly estimate the time-dependent risks and priorities.

It's a fair point but I'd caution that making the "smallest possible good decision" really needs emphasis on good and not smallest or this results in just delaying. And there's a ton of people that cause delays. Especially in the corporate world.

I think delaying is the point. You delay the “immediateness” so you can form a nuanced opinion without urgency.

I know we can’t always change the world we live in, but we can at least acknowledge it. In the corporate world people really like to pretend there is a fire, when few things are truly urgent. If you can keep the sky from falling down with a quick and small scoped decision, you free up time to make big and long term decisions slowly.

Wonder if you really "have to" make that decision "now". Sometimes you may have to get the ball rolling because of time constraints there specifically but the decision itself can wait. For example it might be fine to get funds moving so they are ready, even if the later decision means they are not needed anymore.

> making the best possible, smallest decision will rarely get you into trouble

It's like gradient descent for humans

It also potentially traps you in a local maximum

> First, "slow-thinking" is really just a different way of expressing your thinking and you should begin by leaning into it rather than leaning away. Take time, allow yourself to pause to collect your thoughts. People often interpret quietness (not filler) as intelligence and maturity (because usually it is). Alternatively not answering is also valid.

From experience, it doesn't work, especially in a group setting. People usually end up trying to guess what you want to say, or add on to what they said, or move on, or something. But they very rarely just wait patiently for me to think things through.

Can you give an example of this? Even if you say something indicating that you need a moment, they will just ignore you?

This is definitely true in Asia

> Second, as a person who is generally regarded as quick-witted and sharp, most of that sharpness comes from either having a few pre-known responses to ideas or anxiously revising situations in my head ahead of time. This is, generally, a bad thing because it means I have made decisions on how I will respond to things without all of the information (as some will come over during conversation).

I'd challenge that. I think that being both quick and sharp comes from having an accurate mental model of what kind of information is important for the decision. When new information comes in, you don't discount it, but you have an intuitive feel for how much it should affect your priors.

For example, say that your team works on a minor page of a major tech product, say something that only gets 0.1% of traffic. Your TL reports back that a change they made to an ads widget on the page drops conversions by 20%. The change was done in service of a visual design consistency effort across the company. Normally a drop in conversions by 20% would be an immediate no-go, but knowing that the page only gets 0.1% of traffic, you can run the math and figure this is a 0.02% decrease in revenue, almost imperceptible.

Now imagine that the news was that 3 other key products in the company are dropping the visual consistency effort. The right move here is probably to cancel the project, because if you go ahead with it but others don't, you actually make the consistency worse. You can't know that without knowing the context and reasoning behind the initial decision. Normally, when an unrelated product cancels a project, it doesn't matter to you.

"I’m a disappointing person to try to debate or attack. I just have nothing to say in the moment, except maybe, 'Good point.' Then a few days later, after thinking about it a lot, I have a response" - Derek Sivers (https://sive.rs/slow)

This sounds very admirable to me

Just this morning I listened to a radio interview with pianist Igor Levit. It was excruciating. He had to think for seconds before every third word in a sentence, creating awkward pauses, and when he had finally finished an answer, he had only transmitted trivial content. I am sure that if they had sent him the questions a few days earlier, he could have prepared much more interesting and eloquent answers. I felt very bad for him, because I recognized myself. If you ask me a question I haven't thought of, I usually have an answer ready immediately. The problem is that I either don't like the answer, or don't know if the answer is correct, and I would like to have time to refine it, think about it, check it.

Major problems then arise if I have already started to answer the question to avoid an awkward pause, and realize several words in I don't like the answer. Finding a way out of the words you have started then feels like texting while driving along the road with 100 km/h.

I have been in several interview situations in my life (including two on national radio), and the ones that went well were usually the ones where I either knew the questions beforehand, or in which I was asked questions I had already thought of and memorized an interesting answer.

Politicians do mock interviews all the time to prepare. Everyone else expecting to be interviewed should as well. If you put some effort into it you can think up 98% of the questions you might be asked - the only question is what order they will ask and how much detail they want. So you practice someone asking those questions and you responding - sometimes they will ask clarifying questions, sometimes not, but again you know the topic and you have rehearsed everything you want to say. In the end for a 10 minute interview you should have 2 hours worth of answers rehearsed. Not memorized, but rehearsed. You should change the exact words you use, but the ideas you are trying to say are already in your mind and so easy to do.

Remember too that you can redirect questions. They might never ask about your best friend as a kid, but you have rehearsed the story of something you did and that story can be used as an example for 20 different questions. While telling that story you don't really need to think about it so instead you get that entire time to figure out the conclusion where you tie the story back to the question.

Being interviewed is a skill. You can practice it.

You've got it exactly right, and the same technique works well for giving presentations.

Run through your slides in front of your rubber duck, as if they're the audience.

You want to program your brain to work like a soundboard - for topic X, say "Y". I find it helps me greatly to have these prebaked responses ready to go, and I get to choose when I'm talking whether I adlib entirely or just repeat the same script i trained.

Often even during the talk there would be times I'd feel out of it, distracted, or something else. Then you just do rote script until your brain recovers and you can be fully "on" again.

Finally, people LOVE hearing stories. So the more stories you can work into your answers or your presentation, people will stay engaged. This is a common thread from watching many very competent presenters at cons

The key thing here is reflection. You can look at your speech again and ask: am I more anxious about saying something I don’t like, or about this? I also was a slow-speaker, which in my case was actually anxious-speaker. But at some point I said “f… it” cause no one really cares deeply about the perfect form of a fine structure of your message. Literally anything is better than your awkward stumbling.

Be wrong and say stupid things. You will be corrected or correct yourself. Accept the correction and move on. If you feel very wrong, turn it into a question? Instead of feeding back to anxiety you’ll feed back to speech.

Yes and: I would expect a show's producers and editors to fix those pauses.

It was live. But I would've expected that they had a conversation discussing possible topics / questions beforehand (large and established radio station with over 2 million listeners). These awkward pauses would've been spotted then already. Maybe they had, and he was more relaxed and eloquent there, or maybe his schedule didn't allow for a pre-interview meeting.

Even if there wasn't time, he should have practiced interviews before and so been comfortable even if the exact topic is new.

He should always be prepared to talk about his first interest in music. His first time touching a piano. Why he choose piano (which may have been his parents forcing it at first). What other instruments he plays. What is favorite music is. Details about whatever piece is performing now (maybe spoilers on what he is practicing but not yet performing). Ideally he should listen to modern music so he can connect to kids by talking about something popular today (maybe even play a piano arrangement of it).

Those are the basics that he should have an easy time talking about. If he unexpectedly wins an award he didn't expect to be in competition for he might be speechless, but for the above the answers should be easy.

...if he wants to be good at giving interviews. He can also be happy being a pianist who isn't good at giving interviews.

But then he shouldn't have granted an interview in the first place. He should also expect that because he isn't self promoting like that he is soon passed over for piano playing positions (despite how good he may otherwise be) and has to find a non-playing job (teaching is common). His current job requires him to be good at interviews. If he wants to keep this job he needs to get good at it fast - it may already be too late.

Now if he decides giving interviews isn't what he wants to do and thus switching to a different job where he doesn't have to give interviews (and also will not play publicly much) is the right choice I will not fault him for that. It is his choice and his alone.

> His current job requires him to be good at interviews

I see. I had no idea that was a requirement of being a professional pianist. This all read as incredibly pointless with me thinking that interviews were a side thing for a pianist.

Many people fail to understand thair true job. the real job in cases like this is to promote the show. That means interviews or other activities. Talent playing is a requirement of course, but there is plenty of talent around.

> the real job in cases like this is to promote the show

What, the piano show he performs? Why would that be the pianist's job? Wouldn't that be the venue's responsibility?

Edit: I had to look him up. Quote Wikipedia:

> Igor Levit is a Russian-German pianist who focuses on the works of Bach, Beethoven, and Liszt. He is also a professor at the Musikhochschule Hannover.

So it's not like he's taking gigs in dive bars. Do renowned classical musicians typically shoulder the burden of promoting their own performances... through radio interviews?

Interview might be live. But yes, ideally producer would have caught this before a live interview.

Phenomenon also known as Esprit de l'escalier : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier

I suffer from it myself and i'm definitely better at answering by email than in an oral discussion when i'm overwhelmed by thoughts and can't focus on one.

Finally enough, the French expression is “présence d’esprit”.

Only few people in France know about this sequence involving Diderot and the king, and I only know about it because I’ve lived in… California.

Actually, "esprit d'escalier" is indeed used in French, though less commonly, especially outside of literary contexts. It refers specifically to the inability to come up with a timely response or comeback (and the frustration of finding the "perfect" reply when the conversation is already over). On the other hand, "présence d'esprit" has a broader usage in everyday language. It can mean having a quick and witty response (the opposite of "esprit d'escalier"), or more broadly, the sudden ability to judge and react appropriately in a situation.

edit: typo

I’ve always been this way. It turns out that it makes for incredibly boring conversation, because all I can say is “oh wow that’s cool” but have nothing else to offer lol. It’s also terrible in interviews.

If it were intentional, I could see it being admirable. But I do wish I could think a bit more on the spot in some situations.

This is all great advice. One thing I would add to this is to deliberately steer your team to avoid making big decisions on calls or in meetings. Instead, make it so that your team prioritises asynchronous communication methods to discuss the lay of the land, and only make decisions after everyone has had time to contribute to the discussion.

I've found that creating a shared document or flowchart can work wonders if key team members engage and build upon it. And once everyone has said their share you can then have a meeting to discuss how to progress. I've found this method to work well as you can take your time to reply to suggestions and comments and research them better. It also removes and element of emotionality from the decision making: everyone can see the suggestions and counter points, but the conversation is often less defensive and more considered as people have time to second guess themselves. So by the time you hold the meeting the benefits and drawbacks of the contending options in meeting your goals are clearer.

If you have a say in it, get the meetings and calls to be about providing input, bouncing ideas around, discussing the background, building a paper trail. NOT about making the decision. Certainly not in the first meeting about it. Then accept still more input over email. Then let the (ideally one) decision maker make the decision.

Sometimes the meeting or call is about an emerging urgent situation. Even then, the decision is probably not needed this minute. Not before there is what input there is to find. That first meeting might then be more about figuring out what input or data might be available.

> most of that sharpness comes from either having a few pre-known responses to ideas or anxiously revising situations in my head ahead of time

That's not that cause for me. I just grasp things quickly.

> Avoid using the word "slow", use "deliberate" instead.

That sounds inclusive but isn't what Kahneman meant. Slow thinking is when you leave it to your subconscious, so the only deliberate thing would be to give it time and put your conscious mind elsewhere. So in that way the two terms wouldn't be interchangeable in a 'Thinking fast and slow' sense.

quite helpful advice, i like the term "deliberate". i am actually starting to see my relative slow thinking as a sort of super power. i can chew things over and think hard about something before coming to an opinion. its not always the best opinion but at least i know ive given it a good shot

People usually think we’re slow, but I believe is exactly the opposite, when in a meeting or in a group discussion I almost always know what others will say, and how everything will go on including outcomes and failures, but since it’s obvious for me, I think it is for everyone so never say anything unless directly asked.

In response to OP, to me the exercise that helped me the most is to put myself into situations where a quick decision is needed but in case of a mistake the consequences are not that bad, just like in drama theatre you get better at improvisation by not having a script to follow.

All great advice. Avoiding the situations that require the "quick thinking" is not always possible, but this advice holds in a general case as well.

More that anything else I agree with a) taking the time, and b) keeping an option to avoid the answer altogether.

I don't know if I qualify as a "slow" or "fast" thinker - I actually think that no one qualifies as either and it all depends on your experience in the topic at hand - but I have my share of situations where I cannot get my thoughts together. With --age-- experience I taught myself to feel comfortable with taking my time (reasonable amount, though) or just saying "let me think of it and come back to you later" (if I feel the pause can become unreasonably long). Most people I am surrounded with understand and accept it well.

As someone that falls on the "deliberate" thinking side of the spectrum, I found that it helps to ask questions in the moment rather than proffer ideas. When presented new information, I try to understand the following:

1. How can I tell if this information is true ie what else would need to be true if this is correct?

2. If this is true, what are the implications of this new data ie what has changed in our plans?

3. Given these implications, what do I need to do different?

I find that questions around these help me (and the rest of the audience) better understand the issue very quickly and help me get up to speed quickly.

Note: Some of us spend way to much time "playing chess" with problems, particularly people, and many times, the quick responses I have are because of that. It doesn't mean I'm set in my ways or making irrational choices, but like someone studying a chess position, sometimes all you're waiting for is the next move.

But, externally, no one's gonna see this shit so it's just something one has to get comfortable knowing about themselves but not other people. We often advise people a "lowest common denominator" type of logic because philosophically, it's impossible to know what the actual fuck.

yes, I think you both agree with each other. good thinking is an inherently slow process.

the way to get fast is to do some caching, if you already explored the domain and stored the answers for it you can just remember the information.

the problem is when the caching is done wrong. you explored only a subset but thought you explored everything.

the other kind of fast thinking is when you go bullshiter route and act like an LLM you fast interpolate between known data-points without system2 validation and give plausible looking answers with full confidence, you'd be amazed by how many people get fooled by this.

Deliberate is a much better word.

There are problems that legitimately must be sat with for months if not years.

Furiously responding to potential ways to solve a problem might just use a lot of energy.

To add to this, in a work setting, you can request that the deck being presenting is sent in advance to give time for people who think like this time to think and make the real time meeting much more productive.

> Finally, do your best to avoid situations where a "quick decision" is needed

I find this easier said than done. I dislike most meetings because I don't think quickly enough to keep up and contribute to the discussion. That often means that others will make decisions that I could have contributed usefully to before I've had the chance to think deliberately about the question.

Same here (Took me 1 day to think of this reply)

Can you request the slides be sent ahead of time so you can think of ideas?

"deliberate" is an excellent point. I often have gaps in my conversation trying to think of just the right word(s) to describe "thing". I dislike filler umms and aahs so I just wait until the right word comes - deliberately. Thoughtfully.

And when it's come out how I want it to, it's understandable to the third parties. Deliberate equates to clear and intelligible.

"Avoid 'quick decision' situations"

That's a great way to hear god laugh. Jokes aside - if the quick decision can be "walked back" or is not detrimental if you decide wrong then it doesn't matter and you should probably decide quickly to get through the "maze of life"

Sorry OP, for a bit of a diversion. I notice a lot of folks saying that "quick wit" or fast thinking or whatever, is just advance preparation (perhaps subconscious) or a memorized script, etc. It may be, but for those who think it always is, it definitely isn't.

My son is/was quite bright - reading at 3, reading the Economist and understanding 20% of it at 5, teaching himself calculus at 7. He got terrible grades in school maths, and his teachers thought he was lazy because he so obviously understood the material.

With some cognitive testing at age 6, he was placed "somewhere over 2nd stdev" (they just stop after a bit) for most cognitive subjects... but when taking response time tests he would drop to 2nd percentile. Second percentile! You could ask him to to find the root of a simple quadratic, and he would think about it and get the answer, then ask him to name the first five even numbers, and he would take about the same amount of time. His processing speed was (and is) just slow. In school, many marks went towards "flash tests" and speed competitions in math. He couldn't get through the first half of the tests, he'd run out of time. He's in third year honours maths at uni now, favourite topic is abstract algebra. They give him more time on tests.

My point is that this is real for some people, it's not just practice or technique or rehearsing.

I have no background in pedagogy, but I've never understood the point of timed, high pressure tests, especially for children. You really just want to know the child has mastered the material such that they can solve the problems correctly--why is it necessary for them to do them in under 30 seconds, or whatever the bar is? If one kid gets the test done in 20 minutes and the other one takes 2 hours, but they both get the questions right, why does it matter?

There actually is a reason. It is to make sure that kids have mastery of fundamental skills that they will need in the future. If it takes you a long to subtract, for example, it will take you an impractically long to do long division, and eventually you will take so long with more complex concepts that you won't be able to learn effectively.

Additionally, you also want a fair number of problems in any given test to reduce the variance in the grades, and you want the student to be able to finish a significant number exercises that can truly cover the breadth of the content to learn, hopefully with more than one approach as well. If a student takes 2h to solve a problem there is no way they will be able to complete enough of a problem set.

Of course, there are outliers. But personally, especially given my shorter attention span, the ability to do math correctly and quickly was absolutely crucial, and I wouldn't have been able to pass otherwise.

Subtraction is not necessary for division.

This is a specific example, and the general point is that there a multiple ways of doing things. If a child can avoid 1 step and skip straight to the result more efficiently, that is a valid way of solving a problem.

Substraction is necessary for long division. Elementary schools force you to learn long division because later when you learn algebra, you need long division to divide polynomials, for example. You also will need substraction to do Gaussian elimination, etc...

Many school systems make difference between the ability to solve a problem, and the ability to solve a problem a certain way. Sometimes the first is all that's asked, but when that way of doing things is necessary later, then the second is asked of you.

The point is that you want to prepare the child for what they will need in the future. Sure, perhaps you are doubly exceptional and will be able to adapt on the fly in the future, but you can't design a school system around extremely uncommon students.

I say this as another 2E student that had very similar issues. There is no good way of fixing it except maybe by giving special accommodations to these students. I repeatedly failed exams exactly because I would skip steps this way, but there is no sense fundamentally changing the entire school system and hurting the majority for that.

> Why does it matter?

Because accommodating every kid's needs is expensive, and society is not willing to pay for it.

even more than that - it's quite possible the one who did it too fast have just recalled most of it from his memory, but the other is likely to have found solution for himself from scratch, which is usually much more valuable. Even the perseverance to find the solution is something worthy by itself... (obviously, "mileage may vary", but still)

I had a friend in high school who proudly proclaimed that he never memorized trigonometry formulas, he would just derive them from scratch when he needed them. He would often run out of time on our regular 20-minutes long tests. Admirable but not practical.

Because you can brute force multiplication by doing a LOT of addition. The test is to show that you know multiplication.

A time limit identifies knowledge, rather than 'smarts':

An individual who has "mastered the material" can answer quickly irrespective of their smarts: they learnt both the fundamental concepts and the derivatives in preparation for the test, and can commence answering the question immediately from the derivatives.

An individual who has not "mastered the material", but is smart, can start with the fundamentals, work out the derivatives, then commence answering the question: but only given enough time.

So tests which include a time element are, or should be, knowledge tests, and not an intelligence, or 'ability to answer the question', test.

Economics, and because of the kids that exploit lax timeframes to try to beat the system or avoid doing anything

The relationship between processing speed and IQ is not so simple.

E.g. https://neurosciencenews.com/iq-decision-speed-23377/ "Researchers discovered that people with higher IQs are quicker when solving simple tasks but slower when dealing with complex problems."

I empathize with this. I’m similar to your son - no amount of practice ever made me faster or “more prepared”.

I’ve learned to accept it and manage expectations with people.

One thing I discovered about myself was for many things I have a “gut feel” that I trust unquestioningly. I might not be able to explain why something is wrong/right, but I know it is. Given a bit of time, I can explain it sufficiently and convincingly.

I’ve never had the gift of quick answers with explanations. I’m okay with that.

Any chance he might have dyscalculia and/or ADHD? Though I guess he’d might have already been tested.

Why bother? Given the breadth of diagnostic classes these days, there's a good chance you can find a practitioner[0] willing to make a diagnosis. That said, aside from getting funding for treatment or acceptance of accommodations, receiving a label of disordered often does not help, but does add harmful stigmatization. The OP's son seems normal, functioning, and isn't harming anyone. On the other hand, the diagnosing practitioner may need to be tested for Overpathologization Disorder[0].

[0]: http://www.psychologysalon.com/2012/01/overpathologization-d...

Our daughter was diagnosed with dyscalculia, and the diagnosis was very helpful, both for us and for her. She was really struggling with maths and felt like she must just be stupid. The diagnosis helped her to understand that it's just a very concrete thing that she has that affects one aspect of her functioning, and doesn't mean that she's dumb, or lazy, or whatever other story she had ended up telling herself. We are homeschooling her, and it also helped us to understand what was going on for her, and to adapt how we teach her appropriately.

> That said, aside from getting funding for treatment or acceptance of accommodations...

Both of those can also be life-changing, but you make them sound like trivial details. They are not.

It sounds like the diagnosis marked a point of positive transformation. Before the diagnosis, your daughter attributed her math challenges to global stupidity and laziness. After the diagnosis, she attributed it to a specific difficulty with math. That reframing does sound healthy and helpful. It also sounds like the diagnosis helped you accept the situation and adapt your teaching modality.

Certainly, funding for treatment and acceptance of accommodation can make a life-changing difference. That in part motivates many caring and concerned practitioners to widen diagnostic criteria, so that more people can access benefits. I can see how I came across as trivializing those benefits. Quite the contrary, though, I meant to express that yes, diagnostic labels can bring positive results, and we need to weigh those against the negative results, especially when other options exist.

> Quite the contrary, though, I meant to express that yes, diagnostic labels can bring positive results

This makes sense. By saying:

>Why bother?

You were describing how helpful a diagnosis can be.

By saying why bother, I meant to discourage diagnosis, while acknowledging its benefits and costs.

Exactly. Diagnosis is a beneficial thing that shouldn’t happen, a straightforward and common sense position to take

I agree it isn't straightforward.

Some things can lead to benefits, without themselves being beneficial.

In psychology, diagnosis is sometimes like that. It can lead to treatment, accommodation, and funding, but the diagnosis on its own may not be beneficial, may cause harm through stigma, and may not be necessary to access the benefits.

The alternative: when possible, provide the benefits without labeling the person as disordered.

Exactly! Some things can be bad or good for certain people in certain contexts, and such things should categorically be avoided. In a similar vein when I see people discussing hydration online I point out that the only way to guarantee not drowning is to not be near or consume water. While some may complain about “thirst” they ignore their lungs’ “thirst” for oxygen! Why bother?

That in itself disproves your point though. That’s talking about a specific characteristic: mislabeling. It is really the symptom of someone talking about something they don’t know enough about to be talking about it.

Some people say ADHD for example is overdiagnosed. Perhaps that is true so college kids can get drugs or kids can be calmed down, but it is like saying people who don’t always wear glasses don’t need them and shouldn’t bother.

> Why bother?

Because knowing about the presence of a condition is better than not. Depending on the severity, untreated ADHD during the years of life where a child begins to establish good study habits, management of the condition, and other tools that work for them, can lead to issue down the road and into adulthood. We have the ability to address conditions like dyscalcula with little interventions to help the student be successful.

Just because something is imperfect doesn’t mean it should disregarded completely if the benefits (academic, social, and career success) outweigh the drawbacks of being untreated. The stigma argument is just FUD and letting that take over decision making for the well-being of a child is a bad path to go down.

There are often, unknown to the parent, invisible scars that the child with a non-neurotypical condition will carry for the of their life after having found out about a condition they’ve had since birth and was not addressed during the most critical time of their life when early treatment could have greatly reduced the harm caused by this disorder.

I agree that knowing about something, and accepting it, is better than the alternative. Does that mean we need to diagnose it as a disorder? For instance, I have an introverted personality, and I accept that, even though I didn't receive a diagnosis of introverted. On a more serious note, I have friends who I know and accept as gay, but I don't consider them disordered. The diagnostic and statistics manual used to include gay as a disorder; removing it as a disorder reduced the stigma, and I don't think it reduced the societal or self-acceptance of gay people. Quite the opposite. So like you I love self-knowledge; I only take issue with "diagnosis" as the way to gain it.

You make a good point about the benefits of receiving treatment. I personally have received training in social skills, goal setting, relaxation exercises, and realistic thinking. I learned those skills to overcome specific challenges. I had some anxiety, like every normal person does, so I learned a skill for that. I had trouble dating, so I learned skills for that. I felt overwhelmed, so I learned goal setting for that. I thought I was stupid, so I learned realistic thinking to avoid overgeneralizing and labeling. Throughout that process, I brought my challenges to a psychologist, and the psychologist taught me skills. That approach offers a way to help people without diagnosis, by suggesting treatments for specific challenges.

Can we keep the early treatment and drop the diagnosis?

There are people who genuinely struggle with these things because their brains literally don’t work the same as everyone else. I have ADHD and struggle to be on time to things and god forbid even early. Getting a diagnosis was a life saver because at least I don’t beat myself up for not trying harder.

A diagnosis isn’t a “label”, but understanding of how someone works. It is like being diagnosed with myopia: it explains why your kid can’t keep up in school because they literally can’t see the chalkboard (me, had glasses before finishing 1st grade).

So, no we can’t drop the diagnosis. Chances are you may have something too and not realize it. Does that make you less human? No. It just means you think a little different.

Assuming you grew up in a loving home with stability, in theory you learn life skills as a kid that you don’t need training as an adult for. However, most people don’t have loving parents that stay together, love each other, and can teach you every skill. Some don’t know they have a brain that is different, and need specialized training that works with them. Because of childhood trauma and ADHD, I have had to learn other techniques to handle my life and executive dysfunction. Finally approaching 40 I’m starting to put it together.

So no, we can’t discard the diagnosis. It isn’t a label or problem, but an explanation and scientifically proven reason for the problematic behaviors seen.

Quite interesting neurologically wise..

Sometimes what people think is quickness is actually extensive prep. I had a 30 minute meeting the other day to ask a team to do something I didn’t think they would want to do. It ended up going really smoothly and they just took my word for it, but had they not, I spend several hours preparing for that meeting, gathering data, preparing charts to illustrate the data, thinking of the possible objections and responses to said objections.

Many years ago my family was trying to see Letterman in NYC. I wasn’t old enough, and we knew that going in. The night before, when I was supposed to be sleeping, I was going over what I thought I might need to know. When was my fake birthday, why don’t I have an ID, etc. On the day, I was asked these questions by security and gave a quick and natural answer. Afterword my dad commented that I was really quick and good at thinking on my feet, but the truth was that I prepared.

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.

> 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)

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.

Your alignment has shifted and you've gone from lawful good to chaotic good :)

As a serious answer, just make liberal use of notes.

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!

YEah, pre-caching is very much what I do.

If you combine it with empathy skills: "What motivates this person", "What are their goals", "what are their interests/specialities" then you can work out a list of stock answers before hand, and alter them to suit the situation later on.

You still need to listen, as there is a non trivial risk of your mental model being wrong.

I loathe talking to people who rehearse the conversation ahead of time. They invariably don’t respond to what I actually said but rather change what I said to line up with what they practiced in the mirror. Or they say some version of “I expected you to say foo, to which I would have responded bar”. Cool story, but totally irrelevant.

If you don’t have an answer at the time just say so and follow up later. Waiting for your turn to talk is disrespectful and painful to watch.

Yeah, this is where empathy comes in. You need to read the person/people.

I should have been more clear, its more of a template, than a stock answer. Having a cache of information is not the same as "not listening". You still need to listen and respond to the subject at hand.

For example, you are having a meeting about door handles. You know there is a problem about the placing, but also one person is keen on changing the material because they like brass more. However brass is more expensive, so the team needs to agree a threshold at which it becomes practical to change to brass.

Now, if you had fresh in your cache a list of reasons why brass might be useful, and why its not, you can be prepared to counter or boost "that one brass Guy"'s point of view.

You don't go in and say "brass is shit yo" the subject might not come up.

> I should have been more clear, its more of a template, than a stock answer

That and also there's no rule that says a person who is generating responses ahead of time has to stick to exactly one possibility. When preparing for conversations it's important to walk down multiple paths at multiple branch points.

To the point you've been raising in this thread it is about being prepared to be sharp in a conversation, not to railroad the other person and/or come across like a politician on the Sunday AM talk shows.

I think you loathe talking to people who do it badly.

Doing it well is like playing live jazz. You can practice the song, but if you don't listen to what your bandmates are doing, your awesome rehearsed solo is going to be bad.

“Waiting for your turn to talk is disrespectful and painful to watch.”

I’m not following… surely you don’t mean interrupt the person speaking?

Citizen asks a question, "Why are rents increasing so rapidly?"

Politician sticks to his prepared talking points and riffs for fifteen minutes about something else.

Citizen feels disrespected.

Years ago I went to a thinktank event on drone policy, and the congressmen they brought in spent 15 minutes saying that we needed to start discussing the important conversation of beginning to plan our policy creation dialog.

Nothing but hot air.

I think a lot of those think-tank guys have a policy to drone for as long as possible

I agree that I shouldn't

Many politicians over practice that. They need to have prepared talking points on everything. This often is different talking points on the same issue for different crowds: how you talk to religious fundamentalists about abortion is not how you talk to queer crowd - you will need to convince someone in one of the above crowds that despite one disagreement you are still worth voting for. Of course everything is impossible and you will offend someone (I used abortion as an example where you cannot win and so will want to skip), so it is tempting to avoid that: many politicians have plants who are asking a prepared question, always avoiding the hard issues while making a big deal about something small.

Sometimes you can tell that someone is not listening and thinking about what you said, but has their own statement ready and is simply waiting until they have a chance to say it.

> You still need to listen

I think you missed this part of the parent comment.

100%. Preparation is key. I never walk into a situation that matters without going over a ton of different paths the conversation could go. Even if the conversation goes down a path I didn't prepare for, the preparation was still helpful. Preparation looks like quick thinking, but it's not. It also very valuable at keeping your emotions in check, avoiding one of the common reasons conversations go off the rails.

My favorite line lately is: "Fail to prepare? Prepare to fail."

Nothing against failing as both outcomes are good learning scenario, though I think, def favor preparing for the most interesting failure is probably the best outcome.

Fail to plan, plan to fail.

This is exactly the reason all meetings should have an agenda posted beforehand. Not everyone is able to make decisions on the fly, they need the chance to prepare first.

Agreed. IMO it's used as a tactic to catch people off guard, so the organiser can attend more prepared than anyone else, and get their way

But the person who could enforce that all meetings must have an agenda probably also uses the lack of an agenda to their advantage, so the status quo continues

Well most meetings should begin with a call to approve agenda with consideration for adding to it.

That should be an email ahead of time.

Yep, in other words it's called true confidence, having genuine experience in the task at hand. It's something that can't be faked.

People fake it all the time though.

They do, but in most things the inauthenticity usually gets rooted out eventually when results aren't delivered.

True confidence produces results.

True confidence is just being too stupid to know what you are getting into. Read Notes from the Underground.

This is so key. Ridiculous amounts of preparation is the only way I've mastered these critical conversations. I had to convince a bunch of cranky ski coaches to run a race in minus 30c weather at a team captains meeting before the race. I was able to recite the weather, time of sunrise, the exact time on the t bar, distance to the course, distance back to the lodge and so on.

I have taken a properly administered IQ test. I scored 135 in one area and 89 in another. My main issue is I have very poor working memory. Luckily, we have technology to compensate for our deficiencies.

* I write everything down on calendars, to do lists, planners etc. * I have a smart speaker in every room so I can capture pieces of information as soon as I know about them. * I use many different kinds of timers to remind me of tasks, or to switch tasks from one to another. * I use checklists to help complete daily processes.

The best thing you can do is acknowledge your weaknesses, reflect on situations where you struggle and find specific techniques or processes that improve the outcome for you. It won't happen overnight. Good luck!

Do you have very good spatial memory? I find working memory is low for me unless its something spatial like a route I've run once 20 years ago.

> I have taken a properly administered IQ test. I scored 135 in one area and 89 in another. My main issue is I have very poor working memory.

This correlates with ADHD.

ADHD is also consistent with lower processing speed, perhaps even moreso than working memory. See for example : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610226/#:~:tex... and

The only insight IQ tests can give you is that anyone who gives them any merit is either a moron or uninformed.

Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? Comments like this break the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You're welcome to make substantive points thoughtfully, of course, whatever you're for or against.

I recently shifted my opinion on IQ tests a bit after watching a recent Veritasium video. He goes into the background/history/controversy of the test as well as some of the concrete impacts of the test and places where it's used. For example did you know the US military has an IQ minimum cutoff? And furthermore they have a second 'soft' cutoff, where only 20% of the military can have an IQ under a certain value. In the past they tried removing this second restriction, but had to reinstate it after seeing increases in casualties/indicators of reduced efficiency! So are IQ tests everything? No. But do they have no merit? Also no. It's somewhere in between.

Would highly recommend a watch https://youtube.com/watch?v=FkKPsLxgpuY

IQ tests being invalid is more politics than science. Among other things, rejecting the existence of cognitive inequality is necessary to justify systemic racism via the continued existence of Asian quotas (Affirmative Action). Since lots of people benefit from this racism, there’s a huge interest in denial. In western countries, when there’s a few billion people in Asia, and you let a tiny amount in gatekeeping them on the basis of education/wealth/skills, it isn’t really all that much of a shock that they and their children are smarter then average. The only way this could NOT happen is if Asians were LESS intelligent than other groups on average.

IQ tests are hilariously predictive of success if you’re doing a task which is similar to taking an IQ test like academics. They strongly indicate certain mental disorders. Low IQ is more predictive of success than High IQ. Maybe people take the difference between scoring a FSIQ of 110 vs 140 entirely too seriously, but the difference between somebody with 60 vs 90 is staggering.

IQ tests are weakly predictive of academic success, especially on the high end (1SD+). In general, it only predicts 8-25% of variance, even when looking in both directions. That's pretty bad, an average exam does a far better job.

Additionally, the IQ of second generation Asian immigrants will revert to the mean. Not only that, but the advtange decreases rapidly as they age, while the academic advantage grows. And the advantage to begin with is very small - average Asian IQ is only about 2.5 points higher than for Whites, even looking at all generations together.

Given the impact of early childhood environment on IQ, and the huge disparity in academic effort across cultures, esp. those that constitute Asian immigrants, it's pretty clear that the idea that the disparity in Asian achievement cannot be explained by an inherited intelligence advantage. All the data is much more consistent with a culture that just drives students to study far harder.

This does make the argument that affirmative action is harmful even stronger, actually. There is no need to fall back to terrible science to do it. The idea that IQ isn't terribly useful is because it isn't terribly useful, except in very rare cases for diagnosis. The current scientific consensus is consistent with an even stronger argument that AA unfairly discriminates against Asian students.

> Low IQ is more predictive of success than High IQ.

I'm curious what you meant by that. Could you please explain?

A very low IQ has a very clear and predictable effect on life. A very high IQ does not.

Ah, I see. Ever the optimist, I was imagining the low IQ folks had maybe found some unexpected ways to compensate.

Thanks.

Not OP, but I understood that to mean any difference in IQ below average (100) has a high impact on success, but differences above 100 have relatively less impact

I think their point is a low IQ nearly always means low success, but a high IQ doesn't always mean high success.

This is quite a dismissive stance, and I understand the context behind it: IQ was devised to measure broad population academic performance for schoolkids and has big flaws in how it measures that.

But it still has merit as another psychological test battery you can do to determine areas in which you may struggle to process information.

My working memory sucks [compared to the standard for my age range and demographic]. I've had access to stuff like RBANS (Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status), through psychologist friends working in memory clinics. IQ tests correlate that finding, and are much more readily available (ie. free and not locked behind institutional firewalls).

Sure, the most thorough IQ tests are paywalled, but as a concept it's readily available online, though tests will yield you huge variation in scores.

We can choose not to treat IQ as a tool to compare ourselves to other people, but rather as a tool to identify our own strengths and weaknesses within different areas of the test. Ignore the single score at end of test, think on what felt hard, and performance in the score breakdown.

I would love to see more (better designed, statically rigorous) neuropsychological assessments become open and free to access. It would definitely have helped me growing up as an unknown AuDHD kid, to understand I really wasn't "a bright kid just making excuses for things I don't want to do".

That's the only insight IQ scores can give you. But each IQ test tests for something, and IQ being a bunk concept doesn't invalidate that.

Reading comprehension tests test end-to-end ability to process that test and those questions in this circumstance. What comes next? tests test your ability to understand and solve a particular set of puzzles: they're a decent proxy for pattern-recognition skills if you share cultural context with the test author and can handle the administrative overhead of that style of examination. And so on. It's nonsense to give yourself some overall score at the end (though this can make sense for populations), but that doesn't mean the tests are worthless.

> IQ being a bunk concept

It's not.

If IQ was a bunk concept then the US military could save tens of billions of dollars a year by admitting people who don't meet the current threshold. Imagine the promotion you'd get for saving tens of billions a year, every year, in perpetuity.

Why?

Not happy with your results eh?

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.

> 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!

> 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

> 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.

Slow thinker here.

When asked a question, I can give a great answer 10 minutes; an hour; a day later. It's not a full day of active thinking, but time is needed to "stew" in my mind for a while. So I give my best answer in the moment (which might be "I don't know"). Then I follow up with my awesome answer whenever it comes.

Slow thinking makes conversation more difficult. Anything beyond 1:1 conversation usually means the conversation flies faster than I can think. I'm OK with that and just enjoy listening to the conversation and occasionally contributing. On rare occasion this makes other people uncomfortable. However I have generally surrounded myself with people who accept my quiet nature.

Also slow thinking comes with its advantages. Embrace those. Despite being a slow thinker, my client repeatedly tells me that I deliver high-quality output really fast. He's always asking how I come up with these amazing ideas.

---

Derek Sivers says he's "a very slow thinker:"

> When someone wants to interview me for their show, I ask them to send me some questions a week in advance...

> People say that your first reaction is the most honest, but I disagree. Your first reaction is usually outdated. Either it’s an answer you came up with long ago and now use instead of thinking, or it’s a knee-jerk emotional response to something in your past.

> When you’re less impulsive and more deliberate like this, it can be a little inconvenient for other people, but that’s OK. Someone asks you a question. You don’t need to answer. You can say, “I don’t know,” and take your time to answer after thinking. Things happen...

HN discussion:

- https://hw.leftium.com/#/item/35039358

- https://hw.leftium.com/#/item/17694306

This is a very good point that's worth, uh, pointing out.

Being able to quickly reply is not necessarily a good thing. I've caught this in myself - making some witty response to a situation and then immediately realizing, "I haven't examined that opinion in years. I don't like it or believe it anymore. I wish I hadn't said that."

But without vocalizing that introspection, it may just appear that I'm witty and, depending on the listener, a bit of an asshole. Actually I'm less of an asshole than I used to be, but sometimes you're getting old data which hasn't been cleaned up yet.

The way I've heard it phrased:

"The first thought that goes through your mind is what you have been conditioned to think, what you think next defines who you are."

Don't speak.

People fill voids and awkward situations by saying stuff, even if that stuff is wrong.

It's OK to be quiet. It's also OK to say 'Let me think about that'.

Lose some arguments.

And unless the situation you are in that requires a quick decision is life or death, it probably doesn't need one.

This is the correct answer, and actually addresses the question.

I tell people "I don't make decisions on the spot," or "I need to consider it, I'll respond by end of day," etc.

> Don't speak.

Great advice. Nothing shows confidence more than asking a question and then waiting for answer. Let the awkward silence sit.

And when you do speak, keep answers short and to the point. It also conveys confidence.

Anytime I see/hear someone rambling in email/on meeting, I know they are not confident in what they are saying.

>Anytime I see/hear someone rambling in email/on meeting, I know they are not confident in what they are saying.

Well then you are dismissing people unfairly. You won't hear a peep out of me if I don't know the answer. On the other hand, if I have mountains of data that proves my point, or if the problem is nuanced, you'll hear all of it.

I'm working on getting better at distilling that data into short, actionable points for people like VPs (because I'm now at the level where these people read what I write).

But if you were to assume that I'm not confident, based on my inability to boil it down, you'd be drawing the wrong conclusion. You should listen to me because I'm nearly always right, and when I'm wrong, I'm usually the first to identify that fact and provide a solution.

Also I am autistic, which certainly impacts my communication.

> On the other hand, if I have mountains of data that proves my point, or if the problem is nuanced, you'll hear all of it.

I wouldn't consider this rambling. There are many people who just talk to fill space. Their point was made in the first 10 seconds and then they just keep going. IMO, that's very different than going over all the data or explaining a nuance.

> Let the awkward silence sit.

I'd argue its far better to say something like, "Good question. I need to think about that for a minute" rather than just sit there saying nothing at all after being asked something. I know a few engineers who do that and while their answer is normally fine, the awkward silence makes me and others question their social skills. Not their intelligence.

I know other engineers who do the same thing but say, "Let me think about that for a minute" and I've never heard of anyone questioning their ability to think quickly or social skills.

What you are suggesting is not wrong, its just a bit.. rude? awkward? Why impose that feeling on others when a clarifying sentence can prevent it?

I've seen an interviewer react negatively to a CISO candidate who wanted to actually think about our question.

Nobody paid attention to that interviewer, but they're probably not the only one in the panel to have that (wrong, in my opinion) reaction -- just the one to voice it.

I said when you are the question asker, give the person time to answer. Too often, particularly in challenging conversations, the asker will not wait for an answer.

When you are the answerer, yes, do what you suggest but try not to ramble.

This is the best advice.

The best impromptu speakers, who can carry debates and thrive on off the cuff arguments, in my experience were full of shit. When I critically look at what they said, it usually boiled down to: (a) if you're not with us, then you are against us (b) you just need to believe, work harder, and stop complaining.

I was/am a very slow thinker, and I've never met anyone with higher task switching costs, around 15 I learned how to be clever and quick witted.

In high school I got really into drama and improv, to succeed at improv AT ALL I had to effectively have to be in an altered mental state. When I am being quick witted my brain is literally functioning differently, there is no truth, no data, no thoughtfulness, it's stream of conscious ejected straight from my brain.

Mentally it's not unlike skiing a steep slope but the single internal directive isn't "oh shit, stay up" but "oh shit, entertain", it's not even an active thought per se, just an internal bent.

Fortunately my inner dialog and thought life isn't racist, evil or cruel, as no filter is no filter.

Before I learned that I had the capacity for this mental modality, I didn't even know it existed, I finally made the break through during "improv training" sessions and the "flight" response that caused me to stutter and choke just spontaneously disappeared, I'm not sure if everyone has the capacity.

I usually engage in slow thinking, in highly social situations where I'm "On", it still feels like flying down a ski slope, fun, very mentally "on" and damn scary.

I do the same, but I slightly modify this. Sometimes I respond fast, but a lot of times I like to say “I have an idea that is not thought out but what if…” and go on. That gives me time to process it and I can bounce a terrible idea out of others and I can say “ok yeah like I said I didn’t think it through but it was a bad idea” or it can be refined and clarified. I use the group to think it through with me. It helps.

Use asynchronous communications when possible. Ask for things in writing, which moves the conversation to email. Say you have to sleep on big decisions, or need to consult some information you don't have in front of you.

Try to be prepared with a decision tree made in advance so you can answer the predictable stuff quickly. And you don't have to think of absolutely everything, but the act of planning will help you be more familiar with the options.

Talk out loud. Take the space and time you need to make a decision, and don't try to hide it.

Related to keeping things in writing: use a writing system that you can easily recall information you want from in the future. An email client generally has a pretty good search, but one problem is that it's usually not possible to hyperlink to specific emails. I recommend a personal wiki / Zettelkasten system that you use with the intent of avoiding re-thinking the same thing. I am often surprised to find that when I go to find where I want to start writing a note in my org-roam, I have already worked through exactly what I was planning on starting to think about.

There are a lot of other good answers here. My 2c:

People will use all kinds of tactics to get their way. Putting you under time pressure, bombarding you with a stream of precise facts and figures, making you feel slow and stupid and out of sync; these are all just ploys used by a hostile counterparty to influence your decision making.

You need to learn to recognize these tactics for what they are and develop counter measures.

Some "honorable" counter measures might be: demand to be sent the details in writing and promise a decision in a reasonable amount of time. Buy time by repeating back what they just said to you "to make sure you understand". Ask a lot of clarifying questions. Make your decision conditional ("I'll buy in if you can provide me with data set X that supports your direction"). etc.

For less honorable counter measures just think of "bad meeting" tropes. Appeal to authority ("we can't make a decision without person Y here, or without committee Z signing off"). Bike shedding. Circular reasoning. etc. You really shouldn't make a habit of any of these, but sometimes when you're ambushed by a bad faith actor you're gonna need to fight dirty.

My favorite counter measure is to say I have to drop and run to a different meeting. Please send me an email with the relevant points and state what you want.

Knowing this about yourself and accepting it is already a great win.

Lots of good advice here so won’t repeat it. Only thing I have to add is, allow yourself some time to think in front of people. Be ok with a long pause and be assertive in making other people wait for your answer.

In a slightly competitive or confrontational situation, typically at work, I go as far as telling people: “hang on a second, let me finish.” Or “you’re bouncing around so much I don’t know what’s actually important” because often someone will keep pushing their agenda and/or cut me off and win social credit from onlookers. So I rebalance that power dynamic.

But a softer approach also works of course. “That’s interesting and I have lots to say about it, let me get back to you”

As an engineering manager, I recognize that some people are comfortable talking through things extemporaneously in a 1:1 or a group setting, while others prefer chewing on the problem a bit and crafting their ideas at their own pace.

That's why I try to make space for both ends of the spectrum. One of the practices I've had great success with is a weekly update note, where my direct reports have the opportunity to write out their thoughts about how the week has gone and to raise any concerns. There have been too many times to count when a "slow thinker" has identified a problem via that channel that they didn't raise in our conversations, because they felt more comfortable being able to choose their words carefully in an async manner. If I hadn't made space for that kind of communication, I would have lost out on really smart ideas.

1. Prep.

2. Bluster while I prep. A lot of quick thinkers are not actually quick thinkers. They are quick responders, using far more words to say just as much, with the filler works frontloaded to give them time. For example:

"Now, correct me if I am wrong, and I may be, and this is something to consider, what if we X?" buys you about 5 seconds of time to think. You can say those words in front of pretty much every argument.

3. Stop caring. Few quick decisions are actually needed. If my Product Owner is going to make me defend my approach, I just concede the argument and allow the other guy's approach, whether or not it has gaping security holes or will fail in prod. Haven't made a case for anything at work in two years and just make sure everyone whos who did make the screw up.

"buys you about 5 seconds of time to think."

Steve Jobs had that mastered, like in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqPrUmVz-o

If anything, that clip proves the inverse. Jobs didn’t blurt out meaningless words to buy himself time to think, he stopped in silence to gather his thoughts and respond.

I was referring to the part where he starts out with you know you can please some of the people, some of the time. You’re right though he has a solid pause as well.

When I worked in tech, people who were quick thinkers overshadowed everyone else, and it became a kind of machismo. The problem was, just because they were quick thinking didn't mean they were right. Outside of tech, being a more methodical thinker is more accepted and common... the key I've found is to use humor, grace, and humility and play the long game. Demonstrate wisdom over just being quick and clever.

The Veritasium youtube channel has a few interesting videos related to this topic:

This one is on IQ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkKPsLxgpuY Pay attention to the stats on how IQ correlates to success (near the end).

This one is about becoming an expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eW6Eagr9XA

This one is about someone who just worked harder than everyone else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF8d72mA41M

Thanks for linking that. Nakamura's story (3rd video) was really inspiring.

Re-iterating what others have commented: quick-wittedness isn't "thinking fast" in the same way as you think slow, it's a different variety of thinking that comes with practice.

I've always been a slow thinker, & always discounted quick-wittedness as a skill others had innately. Recently I've found myself being a bit more quick-witted & what's remarkable it's not something I "think" about (at least actively). It's something that comes out from a different place (subconscious?) & does so more & more with practice. E.g. take referential connections: I used to be amazed that people could connect things in conversation so quickly because my mind simply doesn't connect things that quickly - but I think it's more like the pre-connected reference bubbles up from deep in your subconscious pre-made; you don't think about the referential route.

This question speaks to the biggest communications battle I have had for the past 20+ years in my career.

I have a coworker that uses his quick talking ability to manipulate, accuse and scam his way through meetings and his daily work. He is management level (so am I) and it's impossible to have reasonable discussions for many reasons.

My solution:

I graciously communicate in a professional manner, work properly with this person as a normal work flow. I listen and give my feedback and this works really well to make the day go smoothly for both of us and anyone else in the area.

After any encounters with this person, I think about what happened, I make some notes about the events (date stamp it as well) and then let it sit in my mind until the next day at a minimum.

I have found that after doing this, I realized what really happened, (if I was tricked or manipulated or not) and then I do all of my responses in email.

I do not even try to do it verbally. In fact I have told this person and upper management, that I am not comfortable talking about events _because_ I am do not have quick responses to ward off the manipulations (I don't call it this to upper management though).

I state plainly that I do not want confrontation, and I just want to do my job, and I get too emotional and can sometimes communicate poorly verbally.

This is a reasonable statement, and I no longer have to replay my conversations when things go wrong, because I do it all in writing.

This has had the side benefit of causing this bully to back down, because he has relied on hiding behind clever wording and phrasing that I could not counter. And because I am being very open about my responses, he knows he would have to do the same if we wants to respond and his true motivations and intent would be revealed.

So I am now simply happier at work. I hope this helps some.

It might help you to think about levels of abstraction rather than speed of thought.

Learn to walk up and down an abstraction tree of your thoughts.

Quick for me in this context looks like high level conversation without details, so learn to keep things high level, and think in three branches maximum of the first level of that tree.

Also find common context, usually this is where I find conversations get lost, sometimes listening and gathering the other person context is way more important that stress yourself to be quick.

And just be honest, people appreciate that too.

So my "quick" thinking reply to you, are these three branches of a tree that could go wider and deeper but I would start the conversation like this.

- Think about abstraction levels rather than speed, one level deep and three branches wide.

- Listen to gather common context and fill your gaps.

- Be honest

Avoiding situations in which I need to think on the fly. If I'm playing a game, I play a turn based game, not a real time game. Why do what you're bad at and will never be great at?

Sadly one of the places where quick wittedness is most essential is face to face social interaction so at some point you just have to bite the bullet and do things you're worse at than others.

> Why do what you're bad at and will never be great at?

Because being good at things is not the be-all and end-all.

> Why do what you're bad at and will never be great at?

To find better between bad and great.

The reason to rehearse martial arts is to get in fewer fights. You spar to drive home the point that a fight entails the other person landing punches and all you will walk away with is some bruises.

Nobody likes you more because you won the argument. "Yes, and..." is much better tool. Even when dealing with socio-paths because saying one thing and doing another is also useful.

What I mean is that what works for me is to realize that my deficit is social skills. The solutions are negotiation and forbearance, not violence.

Good luck.

It's funny that you mention "yes and..." here because I've been going to as many improv lessons and jams as I possibly can over the last two months and my ability to socialize, memorise things and general mood has improved exponentially. I've literally had suicidal thoughts for years - all gone. I genuinely think modern society is really fucking us up and improv is the antidote. You're just allowed to be silly, have fun and be in the moment. It's all the social rules and fear that makes you withdrawn and slow. Improv helps you get rid of all that sludge.

> You're just allowed to be silly, have fun and be in the moment.

That's still allowed outside of improv!

> my ability to socialize, memorise things and general mood has improved exponentially

But that does sound like a good outcome of your improv experience, definitely.

HN introduced me to Yes-and. I've never done improv.

Using it instead of the the-problem-with-that-is I was raised on has improved my life as well.

Anki, believe it or not. Anki and sticking with the same small bag of tools.

There are quite a few things which are best kept as "fingertip knowledge", even with the assistance of GPT-4.

Can you please share a couple of examples on how you use Anki?

I put in random facts and categorize them. Topic of reading comes up, I can never remember books I’ve read. I started making Anki flash cards of book summaries. I review this and other topics for 15 minutes a day

I had an idea like this for helping introverts with icebreaking small talk. Flash style cards for each person, with info on what you spoke about last time, and a pre-prepared opener for the next time you bump into them. With the card info being updated each time you meet them.

Exactly! I've found I'm a lot more talkative and I appear to be more of a fast thinker with this approach. I have about 15 subjects (outside of coding - sports, wine, pop culture, national parks, current music, popular fiction, tv shows, movies) that I try to be knowledgable on and the flashcards help

So, here's what I've found works for me. Picture this: I'm in a meeting, and suddenly I'm put on the spot to make a decision. My mind goes blank, and I start feeling like I've lost half my IQ points. It's frustrating, to say the least.

But then I realized something. Just like how martial artists rehearse their moves over and over again until it becomes second nature, I started rehearsing scenarios in my head. For instance, before a big presentation, I'd run through possible questions or objections I might face. It's like mentally preparing myself for battle, but without the black belt.

By recognizing when I'm slipping into slow-thinking mode, I can catch myself before I spiral into panic mode. It's all about staying cool, calm, and collected, even when the pressure's on.

Breaking tasks down has been a lifesaver too. Instead of tackling a decision head-on, I break it into bite-sized chunks. It's like eating a massive burger one bite at a time. Much more manageable, right?

Plus, I'm not afraid to lean on tools and resources. Whether it's jotting down notes or consulting with experts, these little helpers give me the confidence to tackle even the toughest decisions.

And hey, slow thinking doesn't mean I'm not sharp. I'm all about continuous learning and improvement. Whether it's doing brain teasers or engaging in a lively debate, I'm constantly flexing those mental muscles.

With a bit of rehearsal, mindfulness, and a trusty toolkit, you'll be navigating those fast-paced situations like a pro in no time.

> So, here's what I've found works for me. Picture this: I'm in a meeting, and suddenly I'm put on the spot to make a decision. My mind goes blank, and I start feeling like I've lost half my IQ points. It's frustrating, to say the least.

> By recognizing when I'm slipping into slow-thinking mode, I can catch myself before I spiral into panic mode. It's all about staying cool, calm, and collected, even when the pressure's on.

Are you sure your experience here is from "slow-thinking"? Your description sounds more like stage-fright. A few years ago I started experiencing this myself, in executive presentations. Very debilitating, when I know the material and feel confident beforehand, but when the spotlight turns to me, my mind goes blank and I struggle to think.

It depends on the context, I guess. I can think of two scenarios where I've encountered this:

First, I'm in a scenario where I'm bombarded with new information and asked to provide analysis, or I'm presented with a new problem and asked for a solution. When people ask questions about complex topics, they probably don't expect full, well organized answers immediately. Likely, they expect a conversation. Work the problem with them, just like you would alone, asking questions as necessary. Supplement your working memory by writing things down as you discuss them. People are happy to sit in silence for a minute while you work a problem or make notes, so don't be afraid of silence. This is simply how complex work is done.

Second, sometimes you're asked a question where you have all the information to answer it, but you need a minute to gather your thoughts before answering. In such a case, one can be tempted to say "I'll get back to you". A better approach, if you're certain that you can answer the question with a little more time, is to simply talk through your analysis. Your boss asks "What would happen if we did X instead of Y". You need a minute, but he's sitting there, waiting! That's fine, just talk it out! Say, "Hmm. I hadn't considered that. My first thought is Z, but there are a few things to consider. First...". Make notes as you go, if you're still talking about thing A and thing B pops into your head, make a quick note to remind yourself to return to it.

A great way to improve on this is to watch other people in meetings. Everyone gets put on the spot. You can learn a lot from seeing how other people handle it.

Some of it is practice and training. I was always a "slow programmer" in the short term. Before I ever practiced algorithmic coding I could do say, fizzbuzz and two sum, but it might have taken me a good ten to fifteen minutes to really think it through, write out the code, and identify any bugs.

After I decided to really dive into DS&A and do some interview prep, I really focused on speed and I got so much faster.

Thank you so much for asking such a vulnerable question in a place where people venerate 'smart' and 'fast' people. In truth, we all have strengths and weaknesses and being at peace with that reality allows us the freedom to address issues vs struggling in denial. Learning to 'play the cards you are dealt' without shame or guilt is a super power, imho.

We all have our anecdotes about someone that is 'quick on their feet' or 'slow to speak' etc but it wasn't until my daughter was diagnosed with memory and processing issues that it hit home how deeply this can affect people.

While doing a battery of tests, it was determined her 'intelligence' was in the 99th percentile, but her processing speed and working memory were in the 25th and 19th percentiles. That represents almost 5 standard deviations between what she understands and how easily she can process it!

Seeing how truly intelligent she is, but also appreciating the time it takes time for her to put the pieces together gives me more compassion and patience when I am working with people that process information differently than I do.

Also a slow thinker. I try to make everything asynchronous. In conversations, I let other people talk until my brain has had time to produce something worth communicating. If people ask my opinion before that, I say I'm still thinking about it or I ask questions to get more context and delay needing a decision. Sometimes I start by saying "let me restate what I think the issues are". Often by the time I've talked through the problem, the answer has become clear to me, or at the very least I know what more I need to figure out. I also actually tell people I'm a slow thinker and often say "I'll have to think on that and get back to you". Sometimes that's literally a minute or two later, which must seem strange to them, but that's how my brain works. The results are generally good enough that people think I'm smart regardless, so I try not to worry about it. Possibly there's some anxiety component to the whole thing because not worrying about having the answer in time itself makes it easier to reach an answer.

Outside of emergency situations (many of which are also avoidable with analysis beforehand) most urgent decisions are not really important.

Speaking from the heart and being well-versed on popular topics. Most people read headlines, not the actual news nor the history of what led up to these events. I tell them what I know based off my experiences or sources. I state facts from studies I've read or heard of. "In my experience..." or "I've read that X is Y."

As for arguments, make them try to convince you. Make them come to you. This is power. It's easier win an argument from a defensive stance. Picking apart their attacks is easier than you convincing them. They either see the error in their ways or you will see errors in your own and tell them you'll think about it. For this to work, you will need an open mind.

Also, if you have time, prepare as much as you can.

People that try to dominate in an argument instead of keeping a pro-social, open-mind only desire to boost their ego, not to truly learn. Avoid these people. Relieve yourself of the insecurity they wreak upon you.

This post is going to get a ton of comments... tomorrow :)

I'm also a slow thinker and here somethings that have helped me:

1. lean into your strengths. Like you said in your post where you asked for more time for him during tests. Real life is much more negotiable. Ask for time, Ask to think on this and get back, etc.

2. Like some of said, prep is helpful. Utilize your super power by taking a look at the material before. This can be intense like when I'm interviewing I really go crazy with prep but it can also be 5mins before the meeting, gathering your thoughts.

3. To get better at real time thinking, for me, is taking some lose notes during the meeting.

4. Sometimes you have to tune out the presenter. If all they are doing is reading out the slides, I've found ignoring the presenter, and digesting the content on my own is better. Then I come up with question to clarify my understanding, highlight a decision that needs made and my opinion, think about how this may effect other areas, etc.

So called slow-thinking may not be an all around trait, but rather specific mode in some contexts.

Do you generally experience slow physiological and neural reactions? In other words is it a 'hardware' limitation?

My guess, in your case it may be more about specific contexts. Some topics/domains may not be your forte, so to speak, yet you could be familiar with them enough to get engaged.

So a reasonable choice could be not to engage into debates, instead take a role of a talk show host which encourages guests to talk and tell. It's a win-win case, the other side shines, you learn about the person and the topic.

Eventually you'd know which topics are "yours". It's not possible to know everything, yet it's very much possible to listen to anything (unless it's a preschooler asking for ice-cream non-stop).

Also, exercising your memory may be of great help in life in general. Fast recall saves you more time for processing the information.

Depends on the context. I'm slower than I used to be (aging I suppose), but, uh:

1) Prep/rehearsal

2) Delay ("I'll have that for you on [later]")

3) Snark ("If it doesn't matter let's just flip for it")

4) Silence, then spend the next 8 weeks mentally rehearsing and regretting and beating myself up

If it's literally just "quick wit", sometimes I have it, sometimes I don't, my wife always destroys me and I can only acknowledge greatness.

For myself, outside of prep/rehearsal, I generally only have "quick answers" if it's a situation where I either have a heuristic I trust ("Budget for that department needs to be 20% of top line revenue in most situations"), or a value that makes the decision for me ("We can 10x our profits if we poison these 17 children, should we do it?" has a quick "No").

Releasing the filters. Which can be disastrous in certain situations. I am a very slow thinker always slow on come backs and even slow in video games, anecdotally I was talking to a friend about this the other day how he is able to have `Natural Talent` the way his brain is wired to be quick on his feet in words and strategy.

if I had to analyze the way my brain works in communication (I have been diagnosed Autistic) it would be something like: checking my surroundings => filter check => no good => return to start until appropriate outcome/reaction is most likely to occur. I could make a flow chart about it. However when it's raw input, say a reaction to something dangerous I let my brain do it's thing avoiding hazardous situations (Environments, Automobile wrecks, etc...)

I just fundamentally believe that most human traits aren't good or bad, they're situationally appropriate. Healthy integration of your traits means recognizing when your traits are appropriate and putting yourself into those situations, and recognizing when your traits are not appropriate, and leaning on the people in your life who have the traits that are appropriate for that situation.

In your case, if you're a slow, methodical thinker, you need to have a few people at hand who are quick thinkers and can make snap decisions and assessments when it's appropriate to do so.

I'm a quick, intuitive thinker, and I need people in my life who can slow me down and think through how my intuitions might be wrong.

Neither of these is better than the other. Both are needed. Love yourself. :)

Pre-computing responses.

If I am to give a presentation or am invited to a meeting I prepare by taking the position of my interlocutor. I write down their arguments. Then I write down my responses.

Then the day of the meeting I have prepared responses for what they’re going to say.

When I am caught with an argument I hadn’t thought of I pause first. Then I repeat what they said in my own words. And then I use implication to work towards my position.

It’s a lot of rehearsal. Like martial arts. The purpose of practice is to relieve the mind when the time comes to act.

I’m not afraid to take a moment to consider what is said before responding. Some people who are quick witted or like to talk before they think are disarmed by this. But it can be useful… just try to avoid over-using it or people may get impatient with you.

In my experience, a dishonest debater will withhold information. That is you don't know a key fact which will sway the decision one way or the other. No amount of preparation can help you when you don't know all the facts.

You don't always need to be the best in all circumstances if you work in a team. A good team (particularly one that gelled) is going to make use of everyone's temperament and skills.

For example, in high-pressure situations, such as when the infra is falling down, you might not be the one coming up with immediate mitigations, but you may be starting a reasoned, calm root-cause analysis that is just as important, if not with the same urgency, as mitigations. If you are also methodical in your troubleshooting, you are providing an alternate path to finding the issue that is different from with a more intuitive approach.

A colleague willing to let you take the time to hear you out helps out a lot.

I’ve slowly turned from a quick witted guy to a much slower guy. I don’t think it’s a problem actually. My previous quick-witted self was capable of being quick-witted because I made a shit ton of assumptions about the way the world works. Now I’m constantly rethinking and questioning things I wouldn’tve before, which of course makes me a less snappy thinker.

The benefits are obvious to me: while I may have presented myself better in the past, I was prioritizing my presentation over being right, and eventually those snappy comments would come back to bite me. Now my life is much more exciting and varied. I find myself learning a lot more and being a lot more excited about the world.

Decision making and arguing are two very different tasks. For decision making I find that asking questions around the subject helps clarify what you're actually trying to achieve with the decision, gives you additional information to work with and a bit of time to think while they're answering.

Also a valid response to being asked to make a decision can be "I'll think about it and get back to you" (but always make sure you do get back to them about it)

The best advice I've got for most arguments is to not bother. If you've reached the point of arguing then egos are involved and people won't back down even if they realize that they're wrong.

One of the great secrets of jazz improvisation is to learn how not to self-edit. When improvising, you don't have the time to think about what whether you're doing is good or not. You just have to play. In context, over the fretboard, while playing live music, self-editing doesn't bring much extra value.

Could that be at the root of your problem? Don't labor over whether what you say is right or not. Just put it out there, and you will be right almost all the time. Everyone understands that quick-thinking produces less accurate results. Be less worried about being wrong. You can always have a slow think afterwards and change your mind.

Fast thinkers will always win in an environment where "knowing the answer" is the criteria for success. The result is that lots of stupid decisions get made. Really stupid decisions. There are corporations where knowing the answer is much more important than thinking and the correct answer.

This whole thing of asking people technical questions in interviews is IMHO just stupid. In an interview if you want to know if someone is technically good, have them ask you questions and test your knowledge. Or give them a problem without an easy answer. Why and when would you prefer to use Rust vs JavaScript. Why don't people use 'C' anymore?

My advice is: if you find yourself in a "who knows the answer" environment to run like crazy. Corporations use goofy signals. I worked long ago at significant DB company that used the number of hours you worked as a signal for how good you were. Work 9 hours = bad, Work 15 = good. Then they went out of business because it turns out that no one got anything done.

I've been thinking about Cargo Cultism quite a bit. Agile used to be an effective way to do things. Now not so much. Did the technique change? No. What happened is that it because the "right answer". People are going through the motions for something they do not understand. Just silliness.

Do a start up, consult, anything. If you can think well you have lots of options, but will have to work for them.

If you are smart yet "slow thinking", you may have a minor cognitive difference (disability). It's common. Consider that this supposed "slow thinking" instead could be "slow audio input processing" or similar. Do you have trouble understanding conversation when there is background noise like other conversation?

As others have mentioned "pre-thinking" or preparation will be the solution whenever possible.

If you suspect a language processing issue, get it confirmed so that you can plan around it.

As I've gotten older I've noticed things that used to just come to me(simple things, like compound boolean statements) now require thought. In addition,I take a lot longer to ingest new info and reason about it.

To work around this, I rely more on social skills, a positive attitude, pre-canned responses, and deferral of judgement on technical approaches until I've had time to consider them. (Fortunately my social brain hasn't aged as poorly as my nerd brain)

Being a slow thinker myself, this has been quite an enlightening thread; and a special thank-you to those who alerted me on Derek Sivers, his work seems highly relevant.

But this whole topic raises an important question: is there any way to check whether someone is a slow thinker, e.g. when interviewing people for work? It would be great if one could easily determine if someone doesn't have the required knowledge or is simply slow to formulate the answers.

You can improve your quickness with experience in a particular area.

I am not very good at chess. If I need to make a decision on a move, I will think slowly and deeply. In the end, I often make a move because I feel I used up too much time, and not because I think it is a good move.

There are some domains where I am very experienced. When I listen to someone's question, many possible solutions come to mind. As the person continues to explain the situation, some of the solutions are eliminated as they don't apply. When the person finished speaking, I have either a possible solution for their problem (assuming they provided adequate context) or some followup questions. In either case, I am able to offer a quick response or followup question, and may come across as quick-witted.

I don't think I am quick witted. I am able to listen and process at the same time. I have a considerable library in my head on some subject, and can navigate it while someone is speaking.

This varies from subject to subject, and largely depends on the complexity of the question or decision. The more I know about something, and the simpler the situation, the quicker comes a response. To someone who has less experience, this may seem like a quick wit.

> what has worked in real life for you?

Asking questions. It gives me more time to think and more information with which to come to a conclusion. I think a lot of what is sometimes called slowness is really analysis paralysis. Not caused by lack of thinking, any more than gridlock is caused by lack of cars. As you know, the person who makes confident, knee-jerk decisions looks highly competent, but usually isn't.

I hear this argument a lot from people who don't consider themselves quick thinkers and honestly it sounds a bit like cope. Many such people might be confusing perseverance for skill in analysis. Not saying that's you, OP. But many people make similar claims.

That said, I don't think it's set in stone. As someone quick on their feet, I can tell you that it feels like flow state. I don't think it's innate, so with practice you can become just like the other jokesters at work. Also try to loosen up. Anxiety is anathema to a quick wit.

When I notice smart people appear to be slow thinkers, it's actually still obvious that they're fully engaged but that they have recessed themselves a bit in their minds. They are processing everything but for some reason feel there is a cost to start speaking so they don't jump the gun. It's not a terrible quality. So if you're a solid thinker people will still see it, don't worry about appearing like a midwit if you're not. Otherwise your anxiety will eat you up.

I don't know how I ended up as a slow thinker but here I am. I compensate my lack of quick-wittedness by preparing, other times I just ask people to send me the stuff they need and want instead, that way I can take my time and have everything in control.

I hope this is something I can train away though, because thinking slow in-front of others is kinda embarrassing.

There are times in life when you have to make a quick decision and that is genuinely hard.

For the times in life when someone wants a quick decision, instead learn a few canned and polished responses that give you a few minutes to decide how you want to answer.

Just because someone wants a quick decision doesn’t mean they deserve more than a quick response.

I’m fairly quick but the first thing out of my mouth is rarely correct.

I’ve learned to tone that down by not responding immediately with an answer. My immediate response is almost always a set of considerations, and then I walk through my internal thought process with whoever I’m answering.

This does a few things, it respects the other person who you are talking to, as they have likely thought about it too and for longer, so might have some deeper insight. Secondly it prevents you from saying one thing out of nowhere and backtracking, preventing confusion/frustration where you contradict yourself. People have a lot more confidence in the person who is very clear and has fewer instances of jumping from one solution to a different one.

I would say change nothing but do learn to express your inner monologue clearly. I often do that by making notes as one would in debate (on paper or mentally).

In addition to other great (and not so great) advice here, consider testing for ADHD, if you haven’t already. I finally got tested and diagnosed pretty late in life, and started taking Adderall. It helps somewhat. In my brain, the noise made it difficult to focus on conversations, even 1x1, and part of that noise was constantly gaming out potential responses in real time. Now I am still slow, but have an easier time holding on to the conversation thread, and so pulling out an appropriate response from my memory. I still overprepare for every conversation, and try to have organized notes when I can. My patient wife got used to me saying that I need time to think through something. I then make a spreadsheet of potential conversation branches and decision options, and we end up having a much more productive conversation.

I don't do anything to compensate because I don't view it as a deficiency. If anything, I'm often asking/telling people to slow down. Spewing a bunch of half baked word vomit isn't impressive to me. I've done fine in life, I'm satisfied with the outcome of my approach.

No joke: talk to yourself in private. About everything. I routinely talk myself through technical problems, new ideas, etc. I spend most of my working time alone and doing this has not only improved my work significantly, it's made communicating face-to-face much smoother.

One of the smartest and most respected people I know is someone who hardly says anything. He can sit in a meeting with 15 people, 5 of whom are highly opinionated architects blasting out opinions, and just listening for moments where he can actually add something. If the end of the discussion is getting near and nobody has made his observations and points, he speaks up. Everyone stops and listens.

This has made me more confident in my quiet style. It’s very helpful to know in your gut that you are respected and don’t need to hurry to be the first person to say something. You have nothing to prove. When you wait and only say something that truly advances the discussion, you become mysteriously wise.

Be kind. Be humorous. Be gentle.

“In this world … you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzOIhLJ1C-Y

Given a choice to pause and ponder versus jumping in and saying something that you might regret, I would always pick the latter.

Most of the time, people who are 'quick-witted' have either come across the situation before and recalled a good response (think chess players memorizing good opening or endgame moves), or that they are actually really good at analyzing and solving a particular type of problem really well (think prodigies that have an abundance of natural talent).

This is something that you can practice by listening to what other people say and analyzing the situation rather than jumping in with a comment of your own.

In time, you'll be the one jumping in with the 'quick-witted' comment.

1.) Prep in advance, gather and read through materials that you could, think of possible different angles, trajectories, and questions that could come up. Preparing your stand is important (but be mindful that you have to be flexible too as new information comes to light). 2.) I'd usually ask to give more time to it - say that I have to take this away to get a better appreciation of the matter, consult with so and so (e.g. another team or your line manager or an SME), consider other factors in the organisation, etc. The important thing is commit a timeline with them on when you'd be back with a decision.

I would say two things:

- stop thinking of yourself as slow thinker/fast thinker

- decide if you want to be able to think fast or not and either avoid situations where you have to think fast or seek such situations to practice and get better

One thing I learned -- I think it was from The Pragmatic Programmer -- that helps me when I feel forced into making a quick decision is this three-part answer:

1. I don't know, 2. It depends, 3. I'll get back to you.

If people don't accept that, I'll follow with some variation of "Do you want me to guess or do you want me to lie? Either way, I'd be feeding you bullshit, and you deserve better than that. Give me a little bit of time to collect my thoughts."

I think you should hesitate - to think of yourself as a slow thinker, that is. What you’ve actually described is performance anxiety, and that’s really very treatable.

As a “slow thinker”, I am continually kicking myself in the arse when I come up with the perfect reply hours or even days later.

My compensation is to know the subject inside and out. When I am absolutely aligned with the data being discussed, I can absolutely spar with the best of them.

Downside is any context-based subject, such as sarcasm or politics or emotional/fact-free arguments. There is no way to master those, so my slow thinking is a permanent nerf.

As a slow thinker, I think many are missing a really important point, which I was hoping would come up. Sigh.

Preparedness is not the solution for many unique and many times life changing situations, where we do not have time to think, but have to make decision very quickly. And I have always failed at that, and created misunderstandings, pain.

And having ADHD, slow processing brain, and some hearing loss, I have not seen any solution that would help me.

Worked for a CEO who prided himself in making quick decisions, almost of all them damaging to the company, and would make fun of those who took a moment to think, like me. Although he intensely disliked me, I was the longest tenured Head of Tech because I didn't make mistakes and he couldn't get rid of me.

Addendum: I might have taken a while to think through a problem, but I am quick-witted in arguing hahaha!

> Slow thinkers, how do you compensate for your lack of quick-wittedness?

1) It may be that you aren't a slow thinker but a bad translator.

2) I prepare 70% of a conversation in my head (I may never use it).

3) My first drafts are awful. Second and third can be worse. The 30% is the bit I'm less likely to ruin on delivery.

4) I used early social media to learn to trim multiple paragraphs down to sentence. I'm still learning it.

5) I'm a slow learn. This took years.

For the quick-witted, perhaps learn these skills as well? Not just to be able to coach others, but to degrade more gracefully, be it short-term not-at-your-bestness, or long-term age-related decline. I've been struck by elderly with accumulated rich tooling to fall back on (eg, written systems to supplement declining memory) and degrading gracefully, versus not, and not.

I've found that people who appear quick-witted are either external processors (they like to "talk out loud" and steer their thought process by group reaction) and/or they are deeply prepared for this exact challenge from past experiences. It's exceedingly rare to meet a true polymath who can contribute quickly and meaningfully on just any random topic.

Focus on hearing and understanding others and communicating to them that you hear and understand them. This will make you appear intelligent and it will make you intelligent, and people will listen intently to you when you finally come around with your well thought ideas and perspective. You will be highly respected.

Quit worrying about being quick-witted. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Here is what I will say as a person with a similar situation. We're not dumb, there is just something in our way. Whether that be anxiety to look dumb or something else. My best advice is don't try to be quick, take your time, formulate a thought and own it. That will make you feel less bad about this perceived negative trait.

I work at both extremes. I can make decisions on the fly, or I need time to think and analyze. So I just say where I'm at for any specific question. I'll tell people that I want to take some time to think about whatever the concern is, and most people are respectful of that.

If you have a culture of async communication, that helps.

i'm trying to think of a single situation where quick-wittedness is ever actually important outside of cracking jokes and i'm coming up with nothing. i'm a slow thinker too but the amount it causes any issues for me is zero. if i need more time to think about something, i just say that and it's fine.

In circumstances where I’ve seemed this way it’s just that I’ve been thinking about the problem quite a bit and so know the shape of it. In some sense, the quick response is more retrieval than computation.

In times when I haven’t appeared like this, I haven’t thought about the problem much. L

Observing other people I interact with often and learn their motivational flows and behavioral patterns. People telegraph a lot once you take the time to study them.

I also cultivate a measure of unpredictability in myself to slow other people down by defying their assumptions.

I think try and come up with coping skills/phrases to say.

"You know what - my first answer is rarely my best one. Can I mull it over and get back to you by [end of day/tomorrow morning/next Monday]?"

This is for questions in meetings. Actual arguments might be harder.

I ask a lot of questions and make the other people talk while I figure out what I am saying. This has the additional benefit of giving me more input. I simply refuse to participate in rapid back and forth. (In my dreams! But it does work sometimes.)

What you may be describing is the virtue of prudence [0]. For that, you need humility, and yes, practice.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence

I ask people to email me about the topic, then I spend a while thinking about it before answering.

Also, I try to never fire off a reply to an email without 1. writing a first draft, 2. thinking about something else, then 3. revising my draft.

Stall for time: repeat what the other person said back to them, reframe the questions, state the obvious, use filler words, etc. Say stuff mindless enough that you can think about the real problem while talking.

I’m one of those people, I take detailed notes (I have a very strong note taking and annotation system) and most importantly, I just spend more time thinking on the subject or problem than others probably would.

It's a skill you can train, people that deal with customer service or sales tend to have it more developed.

It is trainable because I was HORRIBLE at it, and now I can say I'm average/good, and I deliberately practiced.

Also, if you are in management, you must exercise this more. Sometimes, you must make decisions quickly, and postponing them has consequences. One example that comes to mind is if a report misbehaves, you can't just let it go, you need to let them know about it (in private) quickly.

One tip that helps is to think strategically: what are the first 3 steps? Or the most important 3 steps you could think of?

Of course, your answer will have plenty of holes, but a good enough answer is typically good enough for those situations.

You can train this daily with your other or family; talk with them, and instead of saying what is comfortable (the next token in your brain LLM), you try to say something better or more enjoyable.

That will prompt you to think fast about a new solution.

Like with blitz chess, if you want to improve at it, you need to play more using the fundamentals you know from the "slower" chess, which is what you already do now. It isn't as complex as you think, just more practice practice.

There's advantages to slow thinking. Great for strategy and problem solving because you'll have the patience for it, but lacking in the improvisation dept.

Then again all you can do is practice.

Try not to worry about what others think of you, and definitely don't think about IQ. Judgment is so much more important than speed. Why are you concerned with speedy thinking?

you can reduce the need to be in those situations

when it comes to human interactions, you don't really need to respond. most of that is pride or lack of options.

for example, in interpersonal relationships, its a learned trait to not respond reactively

in another example if you're overemployed, you don't need to quickly fight for relevance in your job from decisions that could theoretically seem like threats to your division or employment to just you, because you already secretly have another job

Tell my wife the retort I should have come up with 10 minutes earlier, and remind myself that good decisions that truly matter are still just as good the next day.

> how do you compensate for your lack of quick-wittedness?

Through poor work/life balance. Working overtime to solve tasks that I can't solve during the regular hours.

Memorize fundamentals and frameworks:

Logic, fallacies, philosophy, and science for arguments

Fundamental algorithms and structures for code

Common joke/meme formats and questions for social skills

Try to be well slept

I just say, "You make an interesting point. Let me think about it and get back to you / This requires thought." And then I do.

Your issue sounds more social anxiety rather than being a slow thinker. In any case, one way to combat it is to ask clarifying questions.

I haven't done much. I credit this type of thinking to academic success (MIT) and achieving near financial independence.

I’d describe myself as a slow thinker. I’m hesitant to bring up politics, but I’ve been contemplating this in the context of the upcoming election.

I have complete faith in Joe Biden’s ability to make sound decisions through a slow and deliberate process. That’s what the presidency requires.

I don’t hold much faith in his ability to compete on the campaign trail, because all people care about is fast thinking in conversation and debate, and he’s quickly losing that ability.

I see a pretty clear parallel to myself. I’m able to perform objectively well at work, but I’m not great in fast paced conversations, and unfortunately, interviews.

I'm in the same shoes.

I just avoid people and organizations that doesn't understand the value of deep vs quick thinking.

Funny enough, I started to type some suggestions then I deleted the answer. I might write one later :)

I'll get back to you on that

preparation, rehearsal, role play,

delay tactics: take sip of water, ask a clarifying question

frame inversion: go on offense, reflect the attention to them- study the dialogue in super hero movies between the hero and villain

long pauses can be rhetorically powerful. i think showing people you’re thinking-and telling them—is also great. you can always say “i need time to process what you said” and write it down

Just a few points....

1. Some decisions are better made than delayed. Most choices are reversible. So get over those being be important/relevant.

2. Everything else _should_ be thought through. Push for it. If that's not possible then you have to live with the consequences. These are most often sales traps though, see e.g. "scarcity" in "Influence: The psychology of persuasion" which covers deadlines. If you fail for these then please read the book or listen to the audio book.

3. Winning an argument is not just about thinking about arguments. See "The art of being right" for a set of arguing tactics that will make you look like you are dumb.

4. Fast good action is often a matter of turning it into a routine. That's what you do for incidents (gamedays), fire drills etc. If it matters then better be prepared!

But on top of everything.... I've been doing on-call for years. I can tell you that bad decisions under time pressure and emotional stress are often bad and far from optimal. It's ok. It's human.

The thing that makes me a bit uneasy is that it looks like you are stressing yourself on top of everything. You can get professional help for that too.

I'm a slow thinker who's quick witted. Odd question bud.

There is nothing special or impressive about quick wittedness. I have at times had moments of whit that has led to achievements, but when reflecting on the outcomes, the whit alone was nothing compared to everything else that unfolded after. To me, people who are quick to throw out "whit", are:

- Not paying attention and thinking about what THEY can say next - Are not listening/respecting the room. - Typically not asking the "right questions" and pushing shit forward to be "cool"...

I would avoid over indexing here and instead aim for skills like, Active Listening, Making Space (for thinking too), Cooperative Collaboration. When I deploy these over whit, my products and teams succeed more often.

The last crunchy thing I'll say here- which I say here all the time. This is a symptom of our modern world/social media. Don't fall prey. We see people all around us throwing out ideas, projecting success... It's all BS. Amplified by the platforms.

I think I think slowly in some things and fast with others

I'll come back in a week with something clever to say

> Get in an actual argument

Emotions can cloud the ability to think too

relevancy testing, overcome time shifts relevancys testing prompts, recovering plasticity and flexibility, throat working chakara, some of those.

What worked for me after being shouted down by a PM's line of bullshit: Gather references, incorporate quotes and links into an email addressed to all participants, with title something like "Clarification of technical issues raised in yesterday's XYZ meeting". Mention no one by name.

I learned to slow my thinking with cannabinoids.

Let me think about it and get back to you ;)

I don't think I'm a "slow thinker" but I definitely don't like rushing arguments or struggling with fast-talking sophists.

What do I do? I shut up and listen.

When the other person says something wrong, I shake my head. If it's obviously wrong, I say no with the tip finger. If it's insultingly wrong, I use the middle finger :)

Usually the other person CAN NOT STOP talking. That's good. If I'm pressed to talk I simply say "that's a whole lot of bullshit" and refuse to answer bad faith arguments.

Meanwhile I have enough time to think a thorough response. Questions like "are you really saying that..." are the best counters.

Something was said...not good...

I would not say fast is better than slow when it comes to thinking. It's not something to compensate for.

It's like with breaking news. Do you want to be first, or correct? The two are usually at odds, and serve different purposes.

The quickest wits do improv comedy, and what makes improv funny is the mistakes that turn into happy accidents, usually precipitated by speed.

There is great strength, confidence, and accuracy that can come from deliberately slowing down. Your words have more meaning.

I will tell you next week

Focus on listening. Pay attention. Don’t zone out.

That is not about being slow. By showing interest and actively participating, your brain should already get pre-warmed with your thoughts.

In a group meeting, imagine that at any time, you should be ready to reply to the question: “what do you think?” This requires actively listening and focus.

If you are zoning out, ask yourself why you are really attending that meeting in the first place.

Slow is not dumb. Thinking "on your feet" is different from having a high IQ.

I have known people who were at best average in intelligence, but in their area of competence, worked well under time pressure. Among other things, they make great first a responders!

There are also high IQ types who need time to ponder. They work poorly under pressure.

By being correct.

By thinking slow.

participating in asynchronous communication

Less sugar.

Thank me later.

I'm not sure I'm a slow thinker, but I often over think which causes me to delay output. I also struggle with word recall which compounds my issues with real-time communication. This is something I tried to seek some advice on the other day without much luck, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39512837

Regardless of whether I'm a slow thinker or not though, we have the exact same problem in that my ability to answer questions on the spot is probably comparable to someone with an IQ in the 80-90 range, while my actual IQ is likely somewhere around 130.

The only thing that I can realistically do is just reject to answer certain questions on the spot. Normally I'll say something like, "I'm sorry, I'd need to think about that a bit and get back to you", but obviously whether or not this is appropriate will depend on the context – you can't say this in an interview, for example.

I'm also autistic and something I've learnt in life is that when you have such divergent abilities really have no option but to play to your strengths. There are always things you can do to improve where your ability is lacking, but realistically you're not going to be able to completely alter the way your mind works. The better strategy is just to appreciate the ways you excel and try your best to use your strengths to add value to the situations you find yourself in.

So for me I think my ability to go away and reflect on problems is excellent, so if this is an option for me that's what I'll try to do. So maybe your strength just isn't in real-time debates? Maybe you're better at making your arguments via blog posts, or if this is at work perhaps you're good at going away, thinking about something and then writing up a proposal with your reasoning.

The other way this effects me which I'll briefly comment on is my ability to joke and have small talk. Because I'm not very witty and I'm autistic I can naturally come off as a bit cold and detached in conversations. I deal with this by trying to overcompensate for my natural coldness by smiling and showing appreciation for people so they know I'm not cold because I don't like them, I'm just a bit socially awkward. I don't know if you have the same problem, but this helps me a ton at work. I think people who lack social wit often fall into trap of thinking that they can't be likeable people, but really the reason they're not likeable is because they make people feel uncomfortable around them. In my experience people kinda like awkward people when they're friendly and positive to be around. There's lots of examples of lovable awkward characters in popular media that might come to mind and be good models to try to replicate in your own interactions.

Thinking quickly is overrated... and besides, doing it well only comes with lots of experience. I say just keep thinking slowly and deliberately for now

i learned how to write well and don't let it bother me that people think i'm dumb

At work, you can buy reasonable time: "let me get back to you"

Outside work, people remember/invite people who are empathetic and/or fun to be around, not those who win arguments. In fact argument winners tend to annoy people more.

There are very few high-stakes situations where quick thinking is crucial. What most people mistake for quick thinking (say averting a mishap during airplane landing) is trained muscle memory, which comes from long prep.

When trying to be funny, quick thinking is crucial. I think that is about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com