
Give it five minutes - sathishmanohar
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3124-give-it-five-minutes
======
analyst74
I come from the opposite direction, where I was thinking too much. In the
sense that I am quiet in most conversations, because I need to think about
what to say back, and most conversations flow quite quickly, and I end up with
a response well past the point it's applicable.

This is bad for two reasons: 1, if you don't say anything, the default
assumption is you don't know anything, unless you have well known achievement
in the field. Now your peers will eventually learn what you know, maybe even
more than they do, but it takes time, and modern life is fast;

2, you don't have to be wise/correct/knowledgeable in all conversations,
especially casual ones where people are just shooting the stars and will
forget what was talked the next day.

The real tricky thing, the thing that distinguishes a <i>wise</i> man, is to
know when to speak like a fool, and when to dive into deep thinking, and when
to shut up.

~~~
silvestrov
_if you don't say anything, the default assumption is you don't know anything_

This is an US-ism. In northern Europe it is often the opposite: constant
talking heads are regarded as empty and being concise is a valued skill. We're
just nice to the talking heads and let them fill the air with words, but we
don't regard them as better than the quiet ones.

I've often experienced that the longer the quiet persons don't say anything,
the more nervous the talking heads get, until they can't restrain themselves
and demands that the silent ones say what they think.

~~~
tertius
Being a immigrant (to the U.S.) I completely agree. Many people can't stop
talking because of insecurity, a little of what Jason said in the article
about himself.

------
sray
This reminds me of _And the Rock Cried Out_ , a short story by Ray Bradbury.
The story revolves around two American tourists who are in South America when
the US and much of Europe is wiped out by nuclear attacks during the Cold War.
With the US in rubble, everyone is out to get the tourists as payback for all
of the terrible things America has done in the past.

Anyway, they eventually meet a man named Garcia who offers them help. They're
shocked, since everyone else wants them dead. Garcia explains:

 _Do you read the papers? Of course, you do. But do you read them as I read
them? I rather doubt that you have come upon my system. No, it was not exactly
myself that came upon it; the system was forced upon me. But now I know what a
clever thing it has turned out to be. I always get the newspapers a week late,
from the Capital. And this circumstance makes for a man being a clear-thinking
man. You are very careful with your thinking when you pick up a week-old
paper._

That always stuck with me for some reason.

~~~
jurjenh
I like that. I may use it next time someone hassles me for reading week(s)-old
newspapers.

I've always maintained that it gives the news a chance to mature, so it
becomes a lot easier to separate the filling from the meat, but the flip side
means missing out on the leading edge (forecasts of storms / shortages) that
may prove to be very important.

------
leftnode
I frequently fall victim to this and I've gone through considerable effort not
to.

One example: at my previous job, our ecommerce site had individual templates
for each product. We only had around 20 products, but I came from a job where
you might have thousands of products, so a single template was used. I just
couldn't wrap my head around why you would have individual templates for each
product.

The pages were mostly static (aside from a header and footer, and the
pricing), and they took quite a while to make.

Then I realized that because we had so few products, we could really customize
and market each page to highlight the features of each product. I went on to
build a personal site with only a handful of products the same way as well.

Like Jason said, spending that extra time (even if it isn't literally 5
minutes) can really change your perception of something.

------
youlost_thegame
Oh man, I'm like having a dejà vu.

This realization occured to me about a year ago, and when it came to me,
everything was so clear. I had been an asshole in too many meetings because of
wanting to speak first. My manager, on the other hand, was a very quiet,
enigmatic guy, and he seemed wise.

While the engineers discussed some ideas, he listened. By listening, he was
able to detect who was full of B.S. and who was has the best ideas. In the
end, when he finally broke his silence, he was usually right.

Silence is very, very powerful, and it's never too late to learn to shut up

------
rumblestrut
I have found this approach to be quite useful with my co-workers, friends and
even my spouse.

Sometimes I hear an idea and my initial reaction is "No," when what is really
going on inside me is "Let me mull it over." The trick for me is to not open
my mouth too soon before I've truly given the idea a chance to breathe a
little.

~~~
zotz
> The trick for me is to not open my mouth too soon before I've truly given
> the idea a chance to breathe a little.

Silence is the ultimate wisdom. I just proved I'm a fool by even mentioning
it.

~~~
pshc
Tangental: reservation of judgement can be taken too far, becoming extreme
relativism/pacifism/social signalling.

<http://lesswrong.com/lw/yp/pretending_to_be_wise/>

------
jilebedev
>I came into the discussion looking to prove something, not learn something.

I'm just future-fantasizing here but ... Wouldn't it be a ripe topic of
neurochemical study to find out what happens in a brain that decides that ego
stroking is more important than learning through constructive conversation? I
suspect that "deciding to learn" requires a significantly higher activation
energy than simply choosing to prove "I'm right".

------
MattJ100
> Learning to think first rather than react quick is a life long pursuit. It’s
> tough.

I must admit I stopped reading about here. I don't think I'm among the
intended audience for this post. It personally takes quite something for me to
stand up and criticize someone's work. I certainly couldn't do it within five
minutes - I need to soak an idea up first.

I often explain to people that I'm a slow thinker. I actually don't know if
it's that, or that I just have a higher threshold of thought before I have
confidence to speak about something. That usually means I'll be the last to
speak on a subject, but I'd hope that my contributions when I do speak are
then at least a _little_ more considered than those who spoke first. That's
what I'd like to think, anyhow.

------
Toenex
Interesting. I read this as saying "have some respect for those brave enough
to present a novel idea for consideration" which I think we would all agree
with. How we do that is always a function of our personalities and
consequently of our personality disorders of which we should be mindful.
However, good ideas need to be tested and must therefore survive robust
discussion.

I'm an ENTP/ENFP on Myers-Briggs personality tests and thus I do tend to get
very enthusiastic about ideas, bombard people with questions and point out any
issues I observe. This is just how I learn but can be annoying for people
unless they know me so I try temper my behaviour. I'm from England where the
workplace can still be a little more reserved.

------
joelhaus
_"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."_ \- Habit 5 of Stephen
Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People[1].

Trusted, influential and successful communicators are trained to engage with
people this way. It's less about "thinking" before you speak, than what the
intentions are behind your interactions with others... are you seeking first
to understand or to be understood? Everyone wants to be understood, and when
you consistently give them that, you get much more in return.

Another case of common sense being not all that common. If you're like me,
then you too need to make this a conscious pursuit.

[1] <https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php>

------
draggnar
This relates quite closely to the idea of thinking "fast" and "slow" as
proposed by Daniel Kahneman. Here is an interview from the other night:
<http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12185>

The basic idea is that our brains have two methods of thinking, first on
intuition, like when we are driving a car. Natural reactions based on
intuition are very powerful, but the flip side is that they are often wrong
and we won't realize we are making a mistake. That takes going into the second
mode of thought, thinking "slow". It is important to realize when to step back
from the intuition of fast thinking to the rationality of slow thinking.

------
RyanMcGreal
> Asking questions means you want to know. Ask more questions.

Just make sure they're real, good-faith questions, not booby traps.

------
smountcastle
This is really difficult sometimes. I wholeheartedly agree with Jason about
giving new ideas some time (and thought). Most people are resistant to change
and their immediate reaction is to reject new and/or novel ideas. Some ideas
take days of rumination before you fully grasp the implications so you just
have to take the time to let them sink-in.

------
ronnoles
Am I the only one who's really tired of the 37signals people tossing their
dime-store philosophy on us?

~~~
homosaur
Not clicking on links is very, very tough. I can understand how you're having
trouble.

------
pazimzadeh
There is a French expression for this: "Tourner sept fois sa langue dans sa
bouche" or "Turn your tongue in your mouth seven times before speaking."

<http://french.about.com/od/vocabulary/a/7foissalangue.htm>

~~~
emmelaich
They also have 'esprit d’escalier' :-)

------
jinhwang
That's solid advice. AND it JUST happened to me. Another entrepreneur with
ZERO credibility in the space that I'm operating in flat out told me that
another company is ALWAYS going to deliver a feature better than we are. My
knee-jerk thought was "Who do you think you are? Jeff Bezos?" I disagreed and
later said I would think about options.

I should get into the habit of stepping back and absorbing what just happened
or what was just said. Although I still disagree with the delivery of the
message, I do see some insightful gems from the casual conversation. And you
always have to have thick skin in the startup game. Nay-sayers are everywhere
but there is wisdom all around you. You always need to listen for it.

------
bostonvaulter2
This advice reminds me of "The Soak". Here's an excerpt:

Back to the original flame mail from your friend. You’ve received these before
and you know the absolute wrong thing to do is immediately respond. Of course,
your animal brain is dying to do so because IT FEELS SO GOOD TO PUNCH BACK,
but it’s never the right move because your animal brain is defending itself,
it’s not resolving anything other than proving BOY CAN I PUNCH BACK OR WHAT?
My advice regarding flame-o-grams and hard decisions is the same. Sleep on it.

[http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2006/04/05/the_soak.ht...](http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2006/04/05/the_soak.html)

------
fourmii
I think this is a pretty simple but important little piece of advice. I am
certainly guilty of speaking before thinking a lot of times. In the day of 140
characters, blogs and a steady stream of self-anointed 'expert' bloggers and
media pundits, you don't get too many examples of the eloquent thinker. I'm
glad I came across this post, as it applies to my actions, in professional and
certainly in private life. Thanks again Jason!

------
sankalpk
Imagine an environment where you did TWO things: 1) You gave your opinion
immediately without fear for others thinking of you as an asshole. 2) You
thought about it for more than 5 minutes later. You might even think about it
for hours later that night.

It's not one or the other. Both are very important. I've seen more annoying
and bureaucratic things happen because people are too afraid to say what they
think. Not because people think too less.

------
robinjfisher
It’s great advice. When somebody is talking, people are very rarely listening.
They’re waiting to speak or preparing their next argument. By doing that, you
don’t hear what the other person is saying and more often than not
misinterpret what they are saying.

It’s a skill I’m still learning and it’s a combination of patience, humility
(I’m not always right) and a desire to learn (other people will know more and
have better ideas than me).

------
tikhon
As recounted in Carnegie's classic book: When General Meade squandered a great
opportunity to capture General Lee and his army after the Battle of
Gettysburg, Lincoln wrote a harsh letter to Meade. The letter was found after
Lincoln's death, still in his desk drawer, never sent.

<http://www.lettersneversent.com/pages/about/index.php>

------
Chirag
If I get a negative remark, I usually take a step back, kind of like a out of
body view, and see if there is any validity, if there is truth in the remark,
I thank the person and ask questions; else I just smile.

Some people mistake a smile for agreement and I use smile to put a full stop
to the argument. In my limited experience I have seen there is no point
winning a pointless argument :)

~~~
youlost_thegame
I absolutely agree with you. I try to avoid fighting about some stuff,
especially if I have the feeling that the responsible to implement some
feature is going to do whatever he wants anyway.

------
emehrkay
Great stuff. I dont blog, but I want to. I recently came to the conclusion
that I don't think about things enough, I dont form an opinion.

I read a lot of stuff and wonder how the author came up with what they wrote
or how they managed to piece two points together that otherwise would have
seemed unrelated. The answer is as simple as they gave it five minutes.

------
yepreally
I think 5 minutes is too little time when you've taken offense to something. A
day is usually the right amount. For idea consideration, I think 5 minutes may
not be enough for some and may be too much for others.

------
duncancarroll
To see a post like this is both satisfying and depressing.

Satisfying because it's always good to see someone learn an important life
lesson.

Depressing because I know far too many smart people with zero humility. It's
such. a. shame.

------
techiferous
Reminds me of this Zen koan:
<http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/1acupoftea.html>

------
stretchwithme
Very true.

Commit your grievance to whatever system you use for reminders and take a walk
around the block, comforted in the knowledge that it is in the queue.

------
vlokshin
If you give this article 5 minutes AFTER you read this article, it's like...
extremely honest and... awesome.

------
funkah
At the same time, the world is full of ideas, and a pretty tiny fraction of
them are any good. The world feels especially full of ideas these days, since
a lot of folks now fancy themselves "creatives" (that is, people who come up
with ideas without having to get into the yucky business of actually executing
on them).

Here's the real challenge: What deserves your five minutes in the first place?
Many intellectually bankrupt ideas benefit from the notion that both sides of
an argument should be considered. This is partially why we have dumb ideas
like "intelligent design" floating around -- they get their oxygen from the
mistaken notion that both sides should be considered, when in truth the issue
is much more one-sided, or should be. _Because_ ideas have power, there is an
incentive to pitch such ideas and to persuade others with them, however hollow
they may be on examination. There is value in talking about "clean coal", even
though no such thing actually exists in the world.

You can't waste five minutes of your life every time someone says their ideas
at you. So, what do you do? I suppose my approach is to try to develop a
filter, to try to focus on things that are actually worth thinking about. But
honing that filter is a challenge in itself, trying to keep oneself
intellectually honest, trying not to indulge in parochialism. This is a tough
subject, there are no easy answers.

~~~
lclarkmichalek
"A pretty tiny fraction of them are any good"? I really don't agree. Most
every idea is pretty good, at least in a couple of circumstances. Most every
idea also has very serious flaws. But that does not mean the idea is
worthless. I guess the most obvious example is democracy; it has some very
serious flaws, but it's the best we've got. Usually, the same can be said for
any popular political philosophy; good, but with some serious flaws.

Also, in the vast majority of cases, both sides of the argument should be
concidered. Sure ID should be dead by now, but the first time it was proposed
it very definatly should have had both sides heard. Look at when evolution was
first proposed as an idea. Had both sides not been heard on that idea, had it
not been given it's 5 minutes, we would live in a very different world. Of
course this is an example that will make many people wince, as I am comparing
an evidence backed theory with pure religious dogma, but I fail to see the
difference. If religious based dogma cannot be successfully argued against,
then maybe some more research should be done to counter it. But until a
rational/scientific argument can be formed against it, I see no reason why it
should not receive its 5 minutes.

I disagree with you. Every time you deny an idea 5 minutes, or the time it
takes to form a convincing argument against it, you are presuming guilt. It's
standard that we put the burden of proof on the person proposing the idea, but
just recently I've been trying to put the burden of proof on myself. If I
cannot form or find a convincing argument to counter the idea, then what
reason do I have not to accept it? Or if not accept it, at least give it a
space in the great library of valid ideas. Maybe "giving the idea 5 minutes"
is a bad way to look at it, but coming up with a purely rational/scientific
basis for the dismissal or acceptance of any idea is a very good exercise.

------
drats
Six days ago, during the last HN cycle of 37signals blog/marketing, I said
that I thought they were desperate to prove that their path was so awesome
because there was tension about not getting acquired and not really working on
anything world-changing (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3629729>). I
think this post of introspection from 37S supports my point. It confirms that
all the other 37 Signals stuff was part of their program of constantly
churning out contrarian pablum because it's good marketing, because people
(young men usually) like to do that and because they have this uncertainty
about them which needs to be masked with an aggressive stance.

Whatever the past reasons for posting I welcome this blog, if it's genuine,
because it might be the first signal of a change from the usual blogspam from
37 signals that magically makes it's way to the HN front-page on a regular
basis.

~~~
aspir
I think you're looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. Sure this
blog is marketing. All blogs serve at least a partial marketing purpose,
whether they be from individual software developers, small businesses, big
companies, or nonprofits. The difference is that "good blogs" are ones where I
can extract value from the post. Signal vs Noise is one of these blogs.

I don't understand your complaint at it's core. Are you upset that
multimillionaires are sharing their key decision points, advice, and
retrospectives in exchange for promotion? Most people charge for such
disclosure, and highly so[0]. We're lucky that the culture and technology of
the web has torn down this glass ceiling access to insight.

Just look at the forum we're discussing this in -- new.ycombinator.com -- if
you're anti marketing, you may not want to raise issue within a forum owned
and run by an extremely active investment fund

[0][http://www.kepplerspeakers.com/search/?feerange=ABOVE%20$50,...](http://www.kepplerspeakers.com/search/?feerange=ABOVE%20$50,000)

~~~
drats
But they don't share anything of worth to my mind. I like _most_ HN links that
make the front page but I've yet to find a 37 Signals post that's really
anything but smoke and mirrors designed to indirectly praise themselves.
Someone made that same smoke and mirrors criticism of PG's essays a while back
and I think that's false, he puts work into his "blog" and it's interesting.
More than that he gets other people to read it and give feedback before he
publishes. The quality of the 37 Signals stuff is just incredibly low and it
only makes the font page for "hip" reasons.

~~~
LargeWu
There is a foolproof solution to this. It doesn't even require any time or
effort on your part. It's this: Don't click on the link.

Just don't click it.

I'm not even going to speculate why you are so worked up over the fact that
other people find value in something you don't. We get it. You don't like what
they write. Just don't read it. Problem solved. Ask yourself if this is really
worth any more of your time or emotional investment.

