
I’m a very slow thinker (2016) - gary__
https://sivers.org/slow
======
techstrategist
We slow thinkers are among good company, including Charles Darwin:

"I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so remarkable in
some clever men, for instance, Huxley. I am therefore a poor critic: a paper
or book, when first read, generally excites my admiration, and it is only
after considerable reflection that I perceive the weak points. My power to
follow a long and purely abstract train of thought is very limited; and
therefore I could never have succeeded with metaphysics or mathematics. My
memory is extensive, yet hazy: it suffices to make me cautious by vaguely
telling me that I have observed or read something opposed to the conclusion
which I am drawing, or on the other hand in favour of it; and after a time I
can generally recollect where to search for my authority. So poor in one sense
is my memory, that I have never been able to remember for more than a few days
a single date or a line of poetry."

[https://fs.blog/2016/10/charles-darwins-reflections-
mind/](https://fs.blog/2016/10/charles-darwins-reflections-mind/)

~~~
usgroup
I’ve wondered recently if speed and intelligence have anything to do with each
other at all. It does in IQ tests but Darwin by his account would have been
average at best.

Further, the argument goes that there exists a g factor, and performance in a
test that is sufficiently complex will be predictive of performance at
anything else sufficiently complex ... Yet if we allow time to vary this seems
to be so obviously false...

~~~
growlist
I've often thought about this - I suffered at school because the subject
matter quickly seemed to arrive at one or more foundational concepts to not be
explored further, whereas my brain would constantly ask, 'but why?'. The
relentless pace didn't suit me at all. Nevertheless I learnt to override this
in time and now have a BSc and MSc.

~~~
andai
Did you begin a parallel learning project for actually understanding the
material?

~~~
growlist
When I was at school you mean?

------
Netcob
That's why I don't like meetings where you're supposed to come up with a
solution on the spot and then break it down into tasks immediately.

That only works if you have lots of closely related experience so that the
solution is trivial to you anyway, or if you're a genius. Most of the time you
end up with shitty "knee-jerk" software that focuses on technical details way
too much instead of solving the problem.

I'll think about it, maybe do some experiments / proof-of-concept, then we can
talk about it again, then I'll think about your input, and then we can discuss
the tasks and sub-tasks once things are starting to make sense.

~~~
dredmorbius
"Creativity is not a team sport", an observation from Prof Vincent Walsh on
neuroscience of creativity:

 _[There 's] a very long and well-established literature in psychology that
getting groups of people together is no way to come up with ideas. Creativity
is not a team sport. What you're looking for is somebody's individual,
intellectual trunk to make new connections and come up with something new._

 _Let 's imagine billions of neurons in my head communicating with stuff
they've been talking about all their lives together: there's a high
probability that occasionally they'll come up with something new. Let's now
think of the line of communication that you and I have got between each other,
which is impoverished, because we have to try and translate complex ideas into
language, and how many times do you find you've got a good idea, it's almost
in symbolic thought inside your head, and you really can't articulate it to
someone. And when you do, they get the wrong idea, because really, language
can't encapsulate it until it's fully formed. There's no good evidence that I
know of that these brainstorming sessions will come up with a solution or a
new idea._

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfMvqkrQkYQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfMvqkrQkYQ)

~~~
fjsolwmv
Creativity is absolutely a team sport. It's just not a _timed_ sport.

~~~
dredmorbius
I get where you're coming from. Yes, sharing and mixing of ideas between
people is important. But so is solitary, quiet, away, alone time.

The difference in rates and understanding of our internal and external
informational exchanges is particularly crucial, as noted in the passage
quoted above. It's far too easy for bad or extraneous inputs to derail the
creative process.

------
mrkgnao
Alexander Grothendieck, one of the most influential mathematicians of the 20th
century, on cognitive "facility" and giftedness:

    
    
       Since then I’ve had the chance in the world of mathematics that bid me welcome,
       to meet quite a number of people, both among my “elders” and among young people
       in my general age group who were more brilliant, much more ‘gifted’ than I was.
       I admired the facility with which they picked up, as if at play, new ideas,
       juggling them as if familiar with them from the cradle–while for myself I felt
       clumsy, even oafish, wandering painfully up an arduous track, like a dumb ox
       faced with an amorphous mountain of things I had to learn (so I was assured)
       things I felt incapable of understanding the essentials or following through to
       the end. Indeed, there was little about me that identified the kind of bright
       student who wins at prestigious competitions or assimilates almost by sleight
       of hand, the most forbidding subjects.
    
       In fact, most of these comrades who I gauged to be more brilliant than I have
       gone on to become distinguished mathematicians. Still from the perspective or
       thirty or thirty five years, I can state that their imprint upon the
       mathematics of our time has not been very profound. They’ve done all things,
       often beautiful things in a context that was already set out before them, which
       they had no inclination to disturb. Without being aware of it, they’ve remained
       prisoners of those invisible and despotic circles which delimit the universe of
       a certain milieu in a given era. To have broken these bounds they would have to
       rediscover in themselves that capability which was their birthright, as it was
       mine: The capacity to be alone.
    

(from _Récoltes et Semailles_ )

~~~
abcdcba
I always wonder when I hear this sort of thing if the person saying it is just
super hard on themselves

~~~
solveit
They are. Or at least, this guy is. Quote from Dieudonne, his doctoral
advisor, describing how Grothendieck got his PhD:

>A general theory of duality for locally convex spaces had to be worked out:
Schwartz and I had started its study for Fréchet spaces and their direct
limits, but we had met a series of problems we could not solve. We therefore
proposed them to Grothendieck, and the result turned out to exceed our most
sanguine expectations. In less than a year, he had solved all our problems by
very ingenious new constructions; then, with the techniques he had developed,
he started to work on many other questions in functional analysis.

------
exrook
It's interesting to compare this to the idea of the brain having two systems
of cognition: a "System 1" process that is automatic and quick to respond,
relying on memorized behaviors; and a "System 2" process that is more
methodical, logical, and deliberate, but far slower to react.

The author's point being that we should try harder to use our System 2 thought
process at the expense of quick turnaround from the System 1 process. I think
this is probably a good idea but it can be difficult in practice since it
takes more effort to intentionally engage system 2.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Systems)

[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YshRbqZHYFoEMqFAu/why-
truth-...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YshRbqZHYFoEMqFAu/why-truth-and)

~~~
weberc2
I relate to the author of the original article in that I'm a slow thinker. I
really envy people who can vocalize intelligent, confident decisions or
opinions on the spot. I don't like feeling stupid because I can't articulate
moderately complex thoughts on the spot. It feels like I don't think in words
anymore, but rather in something like abstract math (not like a savant, mind
you), and translating back to words accurately is laborious and time
consuming. I like the pace of commenting on an Internet forum like this one,
where I can be thoughtful and take my time and rewrite a bit before sharing.

~~~
mchahn
> I relate to the author of the original article in that I'm a slow thinker.

I was going to say something like this until I saw everyone else saying the
same thing. This leads to my theory, and some facts.

The geek population has a high percentage of mild autistics. I firmly believe
my lack of social skills, and slow thinking, is related to a mild amount of
autism. I can't play any games involving fast thinking but I have reason to
believe I'm a genius (just saying).

I heard an interview on NPR with Temple Grandin, an autistic author (I highly
suggest reading her stuff). One thing she said was that a high percentage of
functional autistics were programmers (I know this doesn't mean the converse
is true).

She gave a quick single-question test for people to roughly judge autism. I
answered on the autistic side. I was at a company lunch with about 5
programmers and 5 marketing people. I asked everyone the question and all the
programmers gave the autistic answer and all the marketing people gave the
opposite (I know it was probably a bit of coincidence and only one data
point).

The test is "Think of a church steeple". I will give the meaning of the answer
in a day or so. You need to think without knowing what any answer means.

EDIT: I figured out a way to give the answer without prejudicing your
thinking. Don't read the answer below until you have thought of a steeple. The
answer is written in reverse.

.citsitua ton ylbaborp era uoy snaem ti elpeets gnitsixe lautca na fo thguoht
uoy fi

~~~
taeric
I cheated and looked up some of the facets of that question. As someone that
has aphantasia, I'm curious where you are taking that question.

I confess my original answer was to remember that old kids song where you make
a steeple with your hands and then flip them to see the people. I then thought
that I don't actually know what distinguishes a steeple from a plain roof.

~~~
ozzmotik
oh hey you suffer from the whole aphantasia thing too? i think that really
made the process of answering what a church steeple is a bit more difficult; i
was unable to actually construct the perception of a church from the past,
though that isn't just due to the aphantasia but also the rarity with which I
even am around a church. but that being said when thinking about the church
steeple, my mind more represented it as an attribute of the architecture of
the church, one that contextually refers to the ceiling as it were. and then
after comprehending that my mind constructed the experience of processing some
abstract church holistically and relating the steeple as a pattern of data
within the data set of the church as a whole

~~~
taeric
I hesitate to say suffer. Pretty sure I have it, though. Similarly, I have
alopecia. Hasn't progressed to universalist, but I do have spots all over my
body. Still wouldn't call it suffering. Oddly, the aphantasia probably helps.
I don't have a personal image.

Still, that is straying. I'm curious what the original aim was.

~~~
ozzmotik
perhaps suffer wasn't the right term in terms of subjective expression becsuse
i wouldn't say I distinctly suffer per se, i was just more using the term
"suffer" in the sense of "suffering a condition" implying having to live
through it, or rather being subjected to it. as far as actual negative side
effects and the sensation of suffering in the context of struggling though, I
wouldn't say that applies so much except when it comes to visual art. I've
never been a very visual person thanks to the aphantasia thing and I've always
kind of wanted to be because I practice several other forms of art and
creative expression, but it's like, with the analogy of a sculptor, I don't
see the sculpture inside the block of marble; i don't manifest these complex
visual and spatial ideas about a thing before I try to go into creating it, I
more just rely on first principles and the synthesis thereof, but that being
said there is a distinctly abstract quality to my visual art that isn't
exactly intentional; my grasp of perspective is kinda bad as well. I'm sure I
could overcome these limitations if i put my mind to it but I just haven't
figured it out quite yet. im thinking i need to approach things more
mathematically though

as far as what the aim was , I'm not sure exactly. just nice to know people
who experience the same thing as me and then musing on it and rambling like i
always do

~~~
taeric
Ah, I should have made clear the admonishment about straying was intended to
be self directed. Fun side topic, but I didn't want to miss on the original
question. I see the OP updated with their answer backwards. Not sure what the
answer says for the way we interpreted it. As you, I am just not around that
many churches. So, I expect that has some influence on the answer.

Per the word choice in suffering, I know it is the common word to use for
things like this. I'm sure I use it some myself, I just try and avoid it when
I can. I have no doubt this affects my methods of thinking. But, having never
known the other ones, really, I can't say much else about it.

It is funny how I always thought of myself as just not visual. Never really
considered it was because I don't see as much with my eyes closed, per se.

The really mind blowing experience for me, is how I can find things I did in
the past and have almost zero memory of the visual aspect of it. I knew I
spent time on something, but I don't remember how it looked as a finished
thing.

------
buchanae
I'm the same way! I have to train myself not to think when people give a
casual "hey, how are you?".

The book "Quiet: The Power of Introverts" has an interesting message about how
introverts struggle to fit into an image of society where one must be a quick-
witted extrovert in order to be successful and powerful. I think it's the same
for fast vs slow thinkers. It's important to know your a slow thinker, and
accept it as a strength.

~~~
Swizec
You would be surprised how often people don't even notice if you respond to
"hey, how are you", with "hi".

But, really, the script you're meant to follow goes like this:

    
    
        Hey how are you?
        Hey, good, how about you?
        Pretty good
    

Then, if the conversation is meant to continue, which it most often is not,
one of you says "So ... what's up in your life?" or "So ... how's that thing
you're working on going?" or some other more specific question.

Edit: let’s also not forget that “howdy” is a shortened version of “how do you
do”

~~~
toomanybeersies
It's just a standard greeting. Personally, I find it weird if people actually
tell me how they're going when I ask them.

It's even more peculiar/banal in French, where the conversation goes:

    
    
        Salut, ça va?
        Ça va, et toi?
        Ça va.
    

"Ça va" translates to "it is". So in essence, it's a completely meaningless
exchange.

~~~
pnsr
"Ça va." translates "It's going well", not "it is". Similarly, "Ça va?"
translates to "Is it going well?".

It's as meaningless an exchange as most greetings (the only meaning being to
actually acknowledge and greet the person), but it does mean something
literally, and the exchange is technically more complete than when answering
"How are you?" with "Hi".

That being said, you'll see someone answering "Salut, ça va?" with "Salut!"
quite frequently as well. I would perhaps consider it slightly more of a
misstep than in English, but only marginally so.

~~~
bmcfeeley
The literal translation of “Ça va” is neither “it is” nor “it goes well”,
right? The literal translation is “it goes”. “It goes well” would be “ça va
bien”, which is also used for both question and answer parts of a slightly
longer standard greeting.

This isn’t a big distinction because I agree with both of you about the
relative meaninglessness of the content of such a greeting in either language.

~~~
msaltz
As a question it does literally translate to “How’s it going?” and then as a
response it’s like “It’s going”, but translating common idioms like this
completely literally word-by-word doesn’t really make sense. It’s sort of
interesting to think about for the same reason that all idioms are
interesting, but it’s not very helpful when it comes to translation.

~~~
taeric
Am I the only one that answers, "how's it going?" With "it goes."?

Because I definitely do that. I'd expect that to be a common idiom in any
language. Somewhat surprised to read this exchange seeming to suggest
otherwise.

------
EdgarVerona
I feel similarly. I often find that I run into people who are eager to have a
face-to-face debate about something, and who come up with opinions and
rationalizations that sometimes end up being dubious. But I feel a strong
desire to hear them out and I generally have a hard time piecing together what
makes an argument fallacious until I have time to analyze it more deeply, so I
generally just take whatever they've said and chew on it a while.

I feel like this helps me come to better conclusions in the long term.
Sometimes, I come to agree with what they've said. Sometimes, I find their
conclusions flawed. In some cases, I can tell that it's made people who
present arguments that ultimately turn out to be fallacious feel justified in
those arguments. The fact that I end our conversation by thanking them for
giving me something to think about sometimes feels like I'm endorsing their
opinion with my inability to come up with an equally quick retort.

I've never really found a solution to this. At various times in my life, I
have tried to hone my ability to make equally quick retorts: but I found that
I didn't like who I was as a person when I tried to discuss in that way. My
conversations with people became needlessly rhetorical and combative, and that
I was often failing to hear what they had to say except in the context of how
I could weaken it. On top of that, I became an angrier person in general. All
of that felt shitty, and like the opposite of truth-seeking.

For me, it's an unsolved problem. I'm mostly at peace with the fact that I
need extra time to chew on opinions presented to me in the heat of the moment,
but occasionally I feel deep regret for not having said something on the spot.

Nonverbal conversations tend to help me with this personally - even the few
moments you get to better put together how you're feeling/what you're
thinking, or the ability to re-read what someone has posted, helps
significantly. When it's written/typed conversation, you also don't have to
deal with the sometimes disarming nature of people's reactions/facial
expressions/distractions of the environment around you. I'm often most
impressed with people who can do this sort of quick filtering and refinement
of what they intend to say with verbal conversation: it's so alien to what I
experience when talking with people face-to-face.

~~~
jannyfer
I can relate. I used to be mostly a listener, formulating thoughts slowly and
independently of my situation.

Like you, I also tried to be a quick thinker/talker in situations and disliked
who I was becoming. But nowadays I've learned to be ok with it... because I
found value in trying to be charismatic so I can rally people around my cause.

Put me in a completely new situation and I'll revert back to listening and
thinking slowly. But talk to me about something I'm really passionate about,
and I'll be a quick talker. It feels like a flow state.

------
jaza
Yes. This is me too. And I've seldom been bothered about it. I have many times
been called slow, but never stupid, and that's fine with me.

I consider myself quite articulate, but I'm much more comfortable expressing
myself in written than in spoken form, mainly because I need and I cherish the
extra time that the former medium gives me, to more eloquently structure and
refine what's being communicated.

Just because the accelerator pedal is there, doesn't mean you have to floor it
all the time.

~~~
solipsism
_to more eloquently structure and refine what 's being communicated_

To that end, you should avoid run-on sentences. Cramming all your thoughts
together into one sentence (as you did in your second paragraph) really harms
intelligibility.

Also the comma in your last sentence, between "there" and "doesn't", is
incredibly awkward and does not belong.

~~~
dragonwriter
> To that end, you should avoid run-on sentences

There are no run on sentences in the post you responded to with this.
Particularly, the long sentence you call out is not a run-on, just a long
sentence with complex structure; it has an unnecessary comma—the last one—but
that is different than being a run-on.

------
glangdale
I feel this way too. Someone once told me about their Google interview and
mentioned one of the problems. I spent a fruitless 20 mins flailing around
trying for a good solution, then stopped thinking about it. 5 hours later on
public transit the entire (and, as it happens, perfect) solution popped,
unbidden, into my head.

I always thought that would have been particularly galling if it had been _my_
interview...

~~~
glangdale
Also relevant: the French have a great phrase for this -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier)

~~~
remarkEon
Ha. Remembering that one. Is there something about the French language that
lends itself more easily to great wit and very usable idioms?

~~~
daveFNbuck
There's nothing language-specific about that idiom. In English, it's staircase
wit. It should work in most languages as long as you have the story to go with
it.

------
alister
I'm wondering if what Sivers feels about himself is true for everyone. Maybe
those sharp people who give an insightful reply right off the bat would give
an _even better_ reply if they had more time.

This is why I prefer email over instant messaging, phone calls, or
collaborative online chat when asking questions (except trivial questions). I
want a _considered_ reply, not something off the cuff.

~~~
finaliteration
I’m one of those “sharp” people and I often feel like I’m keeping up and
thinking quickly enough but constantly stumble over my words. It’s difficult
for me to take what’s in my head and turn it into an immediate verbal response
sometimes, which leaves me feeling incredibly stupid or like I’m not making
sense. I very often find that if I sit down and write something out I can
communicate it much more clearly, with the added benefit that I can also take
a bit more time to recheck my work before giving a response.

~~~
diminoten
I'd even go so far as to suggest that a person's personality dictates what
they think of themselves as on the "fast" or "slow" spectrum, based on the
memories they choose to focus on.

I (probably wildly) speculate that the people who think they're "fast"
remember times when they were fast thinkers, and the people who think they're
"slow" remember times when they were slow, even though all of us have
experiences with both situations.

------
amelius
I've noticed that my responses are much quicker when I'm in "empathic mode" as
opposed to "analytical mode". It may take me up to an hour to switch from
analytical mode to empathic mode. The other direction is much faster.

Also, and this is difficult to explain, I've noticed that trying to feel
euphoric helps with being faster with responses, and being wittier.

I wonder if anyone can confirm that meditation can help in becoming a faster
thinker/responder.

~~~
imhoguy
I think this may have something to do with stress levels and with emotions in
general. I like to start meeting as observer without much emotions and
prejudice. Then that gives me some space and time for thinking and formulating
position on the discussion. But in case I am center of attention in a busy
discussion then somehow a paralysis of thoughts flow affects my expression
accuracy.

I think meditation in general may help to cope with emotions, thus make mind
sharper under pressure.

------
sankyc
This post made my Monday better. I can relate to it so much and feel happy
that there are more people out there and someone spoke about this, even wrote
books! The slow thinking has been a cause of interiority complex since my
childhood. I feel uncomfortable and weird when people compliment me for saying
or doing something clever. I'm not used to it and this surprises me knowing
that I have a potential of doing something smart and creative. But this post
encouraged me to speak out all this like nothing else did. I think I'm not
dumb anymore, haha! I hope I overcome this and make it my strength someday.
Amen

------
westoncb
This used to frustrate me too, but gradually my position on the matter has
shifted. There's a difference between _really_ trying to solve some problem
versus engaging in conversation with someone. I understand the temptation to
insist on answering the question for real—which can almost certainly not be
done in the moment—but generally, when you get into this situation of being
asked a deep question in conversation, your interlocutor is not expecting you
to actually solve the problem at hand; (best case scenario) they may just want
to try working with you on it, or see how you would approach it, or (probably
most common scenario) they just want to be recognized for having suggested the
problem—or any number of other motivations. Point is, the motivation of
actually seeking an answer is fairly uncommon. Honestly though, my tendency is
still to try and answer it for real, but I at least think about this greater
context for the question now (and at least sometimes treat the situation
differently as a consequence).

~~~
nevir
> they just want to be recognized for having suggested the problem

In a business setting, I find that this case is often more of the variety of
"they are suggesting the problem, and are implying/expecting someone else to
solve it" (where someone _may_ be you)

------
JustMatthew
I love reading pieces that put words to something I've felt, but never
expressed before. This is definitely one of those pieces.

Everyone is different, and I am sure people will agree or disagree with the
point the author makes to varying degrees depending on their own lived
experiences and abilities, but after reading this I think it'd be difficult
for anyone to not admit that there is most certainly value in taking an
asynchronous approach to conversations and discussions.

And man, does this quote provides some hearty food for thought or what: "Your
first reaction is usually outdated."

------
adriansky
I can relate to this. I'm always always envious of people that come up with
quick and funny answers. It's a relief to know I'm not the only one.

------
abhishekjha
Does this have any thing to do with me being extremely awful/slow at
competitive programming? I tried a few online sites like codeforces,
hackerrank, codechef and after a few easy problems, I ended up getting stuck
for forever. I had to often look for the solution which was more than often a
trick that I hadn't come across and my existing knowledge base failed to take
me there.

Is there any way to improve this? To be honest, I am asking this because I am
failing every single interview screening which generally involves trick
questions. I would love to know the relation between the two.

~~~
krasin
I am a slow thinker, but had been moderately successful in competitive
programming during high school days.

The trick is to code a lot outside of the competitions and know all these
tricks, as well as to have common snippets of code in your fingertips.

I still find that experience quite useful in my day-to-day programming.

~~~
abhishekjha
I would like to know more about this. Is there a proper book(s)/source(s) that
I should follow? I never came across segment trees in my Data Structures class
and I have rarely found the need to code one up in my job yet the screening
process involved coding a question using segment trees. How do people get to
know about these?

~~~
codepie
>Is there a proper book(s)/source(s) that I should follow?

You may find these book useful:

Competitive Programming 3 by Felix Halim and Steven Halim.

Competitive Programmer’s Handbook
([https://cses.fi/book/index.html](https://cses.fi/book/index.html))

>I have rarely found the need to code one up in my job

Depending on your job profile, these data structures may not be used at all.
But programming puzzles have become the norm for interviews in the industry.

------
_mrmnmly
that's why I hate dealing anything via phone.

When someone calls me (it's a recruiter, or other) I've almost always put
him/her down with the line: 'Please send me a text message, e.g. an e-mail and
call me back tomorrow' or something - I prefer read information first, think
over it, and then do the answer.

But I think that's the main objective of phone scammers to fool you around and
put the quick (bad) answer on you.

~~~
commandlinefan
One thing I started to notice when I was young that older, wiser, more
experienced people were very good at "buying time" in situations like this by
asking somebody to repeat and clarify what it was they were asking for. Rather
than provide a solution, they would go through a precise definition of exactly
what was being asked - and a lot of the time, while defining the problem, the
asker would end up providing a solution.

------
ak39
My acceptance of my own slow thinking has terrified me no end my whole career:
terrified of interviews, on the spot tests and of selling (especially when
dismissals are based on incorrect or flawed understanding). I always go home
to brutalise myself with "Ah, I should have said this in response". Too late!

I've always attributed my slowness to my breathing - or more precisely, my
incorrect method of breathing. I mostly breathe from the chest instead of, as
recommended, from below the rib cage, and more from the belly.

------
princeb
like to put it out to you to not think of 'fast thinkers' as people who can
think on the spot, but actually people who have spent a lot of time and effort
thinking ahead of time, so that when a question or situation arises, the
remaining effort is simply pattern-matching and recall. the even better ones
prepare a logical narrative for the purpose of knowledge diffusion and
education even if the opportunity to use these are even harder to come by.

because there are situations that require time-critical decision making and
analysis - i speak from a conveniently relevant environment which is the
financial markets - and the best of the business here are those who have
prepared plan A's to plan Z's well ahead of time.

~~~
diminoten
Chess is a good example of this. Seeing a chess master play appears like
incredible analysis and advanced thinking (and it certainly is in some cases),
but a lot of the time it's pattern recognition and recall ability. In other
words, as you say, they've literally been thinking about the scenario they're
in now before, and already have an answer prepared.

~~~
fpoling
This may explain why skills in chess don't translate beyond the chess. A good
chess player has simply no patterns to recall in situations outside the chess.

------
JustSomeNobody
Count me among the slow thinkers.

So, how well do you slow thinkers do on interviews. How do you prepare? I'm
currently prepping for an interview with one of the larger, popular internet
companies. The prepping is going well as far as remembering some of the CS[0]
stuff I don't directly use day to day, but I worry that I won't get the
solutions fast enough in an interview session.

I'm a respected developer where I work. My coleagues enjoy working with me and
like the solutions I come up with. QA rarely has to send bugs back to me[1].
My technical boss, who I think is brilliant, respsects my solutions and
generally never needs to change anything. When I am stuck, it's easy for me to
ask for help. I say all this because I'm just not sure if it will come across
during the interview process because I tend to mull things over a while.

[0] My degree is Computer Engineering so I didn't have as much exposure to CS
material to begin with that, well, CS grads would have.

[1] I work with a really cool QA guy. I tell him I like to make him work for
those bugs. We get along great and I actually engage with him frequently when
I'm building my unit tests.

------
BuckRogers
I'm also a "slow thinker" in this regard. It's not in my view anything other
than your thoughtfulness being influenced by your personality. Folks like us
are attempting to be thoughtful but without trying, and we have the capacity
to hold back our impulses from the cerebral cortex. People who are "quick
tongued", are not always coming up with the right answer, their personality is
simply more dominant.

What's always struck me as odd, is that I'm vastly superior in creativity
versus almost everyone I work with or meet. For me, it seems that no one has
truly new ideas while they do come to mind for me, out of nowhere. I also get
the sense when I'm out driving or walking around that I'm more "aware" of
what's around me than others.

That's discounting that seeing people be dumb enough to walk and drive with
their face in their phone though, guarantees if you're not one of them, that
you have at least a 50 point IQ advantage. :) I can't even really explain the
feeling of awareness, but I notice a lot more, a lot faster than most people
that I know.

------
remarkEon
>Your first reaction is usually outdated.

Interesting way to think about it. Exposure to new information elicits a
response that’s based on past data and experience, leading to hesitation in
reacting quickly.

------
tomahunt
A medical doctor friend of mine pointed out that thinking slow was fine,
except in an emergency or indeed any time--limited situation where the rate of
response needs to be above some threshold. Think: baraster responding to
opponent, a and e doctor, board-room negotiation etc.

~~~
crehn
Or when fixing a large production issue at 4:30 AM when you're the only one
awake.

~~~
NLips
My advice (can't remember where this is stolen from) when you need to fix a
production issue in a short amount of time:

Don't just do something; sit there!

------
neillyons
I'm the same. I often feel like my brain is a Pentium ii (256Mhz) processor
and my peers have a modern 2.8Ghz processor. They seem to grasp things so much
quicker. I can't but I do have the confidence that given enough time I'll
figure it out.

------
arketyp
Sometimes it is not the substance of the reply that matters but the way in
which you respond. It's called performativity. Women are more sensitive to
this, and introspective guys typically fail at it.

------
3rdAccount
I really struggled on college engineering exams and in general got lower
scores than classmates that I had to tutor. Part of this was due to
drastically over thinking and over-analyzing test questions. Some are
extremely straightforward, but others can be interpreted several ways,
although the normal person always chooses one method and it is obvious to
them.

I can make quick decisions on the fly in a leadership role that I would say
are very good, but technical matters (Ex: Solving an engineering textbook
problem) can take awhile as I explore how things work.

~~~
westoncb
I've been thinking a bit about this phenomenon recently. It seemed like a
vague sort of problem I was having in various contexts (first time I noticed
it was working on math problems), but there wasn't a good way of stating it
without it sounding like unadulterated arrogance (I'm limited because I think
of SO MANY POSSIBILITIES! :P)—but I think it's real. I was reading a review
for the book "Proofs and Refutations" the other day, which included this bit:

> If you are someone who has trouble reading or writing proofs because you
> keep thinking of weird edge cases and have to verify that the proof handles
> all of them, ...

(this is a work on the philosophy of proving things in mathematics, btw, and
they go on to recommend it to those with the above affliction.)

I could recognize the pattern being discussed there as exactly the thing I'd
perceived myself running into. Interesting to see it repeated again in your
comment :)

~~~
3rdAccount
Good to know I'm not the only one.

------
tcgv
I can relate, people have always told me that I seem to think too much before
answering a question. Some say I'm a slow thinker, others that I'm smart for
measuring my words carefully.

------
eigen-vector
I like the cached thoughts[0] theory better. It is a more eloquent
explanation/argument of a similar concept.

[0] [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2MD3NMLBPCqPfnfre/cached-
tho...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2MD3NMLBPCqPfnfre/cached-thoughts)

------
amorphous
I'm not convinced that slow thinking is related to the ability to respond
quickly in a conversation, or that people that come up with seemingly deep
thoughts in a discussion are fast thinkers.

At the beginning of my career, I have often admired how some of my (freelance
consulting) colleagues handle discussions with clients, how they seem to have
profound answers to any doubt or question. Over the years I came to realise
that most of the questions that come up in such situations are similar and
repeating. The difference between those colleagues and me is experience and
that they have been in similar situations many more times before.

Sure, some have more talent and social abilities, but I believe it all comes
down to practice and has much less to do with pure "thinking strengths or
quickness".

------
growlist
Wow, this is me, thank god I'm not alone! People often dismiss me as thick or
scatter brained, when its just that I think at my own pace. The nice thing is
that over time I do get results at work and in my personal life, and so
negative perceptions are challenged.

------
zmmmmm
Same here. It's frustrating being this way because you basically lose in most
decision making forums by saying "I need to think about it". People who
respond fast sound smart and knowledgeable. People who respond slowly don't
necessarily sound stupid (I've found it's amazing how often saying nothing
makes people think you are smart), but their input still gets overlooked
because you end up in the position where if you can't present an argument
against a decision being made a certain way on the spot then people don't see
why it should wait.

------
chrisdone
This reminds me of Watt's zen-based observation that we make all decisions by
gut feeling, noting that it's _us_ who grant authority to outside sources, and
that any time spent making a decision is usually dithering. Regarding the
article, leaning on a previously concluded opinion, or saying "I don't know",
are both forms of unthinking, and not being open in the moment (dithering).
"I've seen Shunryū Suzuki take 5 minutes before replying with an answer. But
he never hesitates." (There's a difference, see?)

~~~
projektir
Maybe that's just me but I am having serious trouble understanding what you're
saying.

"I don't know" is unthinking? What does unthinking mean? Or dithering, for
that matter?

Why is hesitation relevant here? Why is it bad?

------
jordansmithnz
I often feel the same way, although I’ve learnt to react quickly with an
answer slightly better than ‘I don’t know’. Answering with related principles
that you believe in and commenting on what you can, followed by ‘I need to
think about this some more’ comes across better than ‘I don’t know’.

I wonder if this could be related somehow to the Dunning-Kruger effect?
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effec...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

------
truklendic
Yes. Debates are a mechanism by which _existing_ knowledge is diffused around
society and culture. But creating something new and interesting is a slow,
messy and iterative process.

~~~
dredmorbius
Rhetoric vs. dialectic.

------
l39
As everyone here, I too consider myself as a slow thinker. Some of the reasons
for the same, I believe, are (i) Always trying to get the bigger/entire
picture of the problem (ii) Trying to increase the precision of the answer for
the problem under question (iii) awareness that there will always be unknown
unknowns (iv) trying to cater to exact needs of others (iv) Not giving
importance to memory (v) a wandering mind, which wants to catch hold of too
many things at the same time.

------
SteveCr48
I'll have a comment tomorrow

~~~
ak39
Not in an interview, you can't.

------
grosjona
I think fast when it comes to language and logic but my mathematical thinking
is very slow.

In math exams at university, I usually only managed to get about half way
through most exam papers. Amazingly, I still managed to pass most math
courses. I knew most of the answers but it took me so long to solve them that
I could never finish the whole paper.

I had to really know the stuff just to get an average grade.

~~~
sankyc
During my engineering, among the eight semesters, I've been able to answer
only 3 papers till the last question. And yet I passed in all of them. It was
sort of frustrating, though.

------
minusSeven
I wish this worked for me in interviews. Saying "I don't know" is often an
instant rejection in many interviews.

------
letientai299
I'm the opposite. I'm a fast thinker, with a bad memory, just like a computer
with a strong CPU and limited RAM. I usually respond quickly and sometimes
make mistakes due to lack of information and time to analyze. But it's doesn't
matter much, because, in the end, we should always check our answer again, and
again....

------
mixmastamyk
I have this "problem" also. Makes tech interviews fun. :D

Shame, because once I understand a complex system (even though it took months
to get there) it is usually on a deeper level than most folks. Which leads to
those "aha" moments which can and does improve productivity significantly.

------
jasonkostempski
"Can you imagine how the world would work if this was the norm?"

It think this is normal through electronic communication. It can be used in
rapid form, but it's natural for there to be a long delay too. I prefer email
and text for anything remotely important.

------
bsaul
i felt that with age it took me more and more time to feel that i understood
something. At first i thought it was age, but whenever i compare with younger
colleagues, i realize it's often that i have higher standards for what
"understanding" means. Whenever you've had the experience of realizing how
much more complex something that looked simple was, you start to look at every
problem with much more care.

That may makes me look like a a "slow" person or someone a bit thick, but then
i often come up with interesting questions that makes everyone realize they
didn't understand the problem as well as they thought.

------
victor106
Can’t wait for his book (“Hell Yeah or No”) to be released

------
ericlnu
I commented over there, so I won't repeat myself, but I can relate to this.

------
akashaggarwal7
Felt good to read this. Are there any jobs out there for people like us?

------
koolhead17
Sounds like Daniel Kahneman system 1 and 2 in short. :)

