

Rubber ducking - solving problems by describing them - marketer
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RubberDucking

======
jbert
My theory on this is that it does use a bunch of wiring used for social
behaviour. An important part of social behaviour is reputation and an
important part of reputation is how often we make incorrect statements.

So when we're about to communicate some information to someone else, we run a
bunch of extra checks on the information we are about to impart. If we didn't
do so, we could lose reputation for accuracy (which could have negative
implications socially).

Basically I think we have all information in our heads tagged with meta-data
which describes how confident we are in the information. We essentially check
these tags when we pass on the info to other people. (This helps show up the
invalid assumption which has been stalling our problem solving process).

Interestingly, they'll label the trustworthiness of the information we give
them with their own determination of our trustworthiness as an information
source (possibly modified for topic etc).

(And to add to the list of names people have for this widespread behaviour, I
call it "debugging by confession")

------
boredguy8
"You can also write an email to a mailing list or newsgroup. While you will
not have the acoustic feedback in this case, at least it forces you to bring
your thoughts into order. So in 90% you will not need to send the email
because you've already found the solution. In the remaining 10% you can just
send your posting."

So very true. I'm endlessly annoyed by coworkers who come up with questions
when they haven't yet worked through the problem in their mind. Regularly in
the process of writing out an e-mail containing my question, I notice an
assumption I made or step I ignored. Failing that, the process gives me time
to think of a way to figure out the problem my self, with a test program or
scenario.

The nice thing about externalizing the process is that it almost inspires you
to ask questions that 'someone else' might ask, but that you almost certainly
wouldn't! Schizoid? Perhaps - but quite useful.

~~~
liscio
I've written many posts to newsgroups and mailing lists asking for help with
my programming problems over the years. I've only actually posted/sent less
than 5% of those.

It's amazing how the mind works.

------
maurycy
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that
will allow a solution.

Bertrand Russell

The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the
necessary may speak

Hans Hofmann

------
silentbicycle
My theory is that as our brains evolved, many of the complex problems they
faced were social. Communicating ideas to somebody else probably uses
different parts of the brain than solitary thinking does. It's best when the
listener has good ideas, but sometimes just the act of communicating the
problem can get you unstuck.

Anthropomorphising parts of a problem ("this object is trying to send this
message to this other one, but it isn't getting through") can be useful, for
the same reason.

------
jgrahamc
I'm in the process of writing a book. One thing that's very hard is to reread
each chapter to make sure it flows. Once you've been over the text again and
again it's hard to get a fresh perspective.

What's working for me is to read the text out loud. I don't actually read it
to someone, but clearly speaking out loud has helped.

------
lief79
I explained this to my fiancee, who is a counselor with a masters in social
work. I don't think it's made a difference, other then allowing me to
occasionally quack for a response (to get a laugh) when she's taking to me.

She prefers for me to take the place of the rubber duck anyway, because I'll
"quack" out a valuable suggestion that she hadn't considered maybe a 3rd of
the time. Apparently I'm just too helpful.

I suspect it works far better with computers and programming because we're
trying to solve a specific issue that doesn't involve feelings and group
politics. Further more, it seems to make a psychological difference when a
person is listening, as opposed to just talking to an object. On the other
hand, it could just be because of her career.

------
robg
If you're interested, there's a lot of good research that's been done on this
topic:

[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Self-
explanation%22+learni...](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Self-
explanation%22+learning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&client=firefox-a)

Keyword: self-explanation

Of course, involving other people in the self-explanation provides feedback
that you don't get from the rubber duck!

------
scott_s
I think this works because when we don't have to formalize (through speech or
writing) our concept of the problem, our thinking is allowed to be less
rigorous. We think we understand something, so we skip over it in our mind.
Only when we formalize our thoughts do we realize our understanding isn't as
complete as we thought.

Also, since we have to make sure our audience (duck) knows everything we know,
we have to revisit concepts that perhaps we haven't thought about for a while.

------
jmatt
_Once a problem is described in sufficient detail, its solution is obvious._

True more times than I care to admit. Specifically in enterprise and business
applications.

------
DanielBMarkham
A friend and I were talking the other day about teaching software
architecture. He was telling me that he was able to teach all the details of
the work, and why everything was important. What he couldn't teach was that
"ah-ha!" moment that occurs during planning.

I told him the secret was that you continue to describe and refine your
definitions of the problem. That's how "ah-ha" moments work.

------
sabat
I don't know why it works, but I can verify it helps. I've clarified and
developed my startup idea merely by pitching it to relevant friends. Try it.

