Repeat Yourself, a Lot(tomtunguz.com)
tomtunguz.com
Repeat Yourself, a Lot
https://tomtunguz.com/why-you-should-repeat-yourself/
82 comments
Repeating what others said back to them is called “mirroring” and is an effective technique for not only confirming your understanding but also showing others that you are actively listening.
I recommend reading “ Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It” by Chris Voss if you are interested in conversation tactics.
I recommend reading “ Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It” by Chris Voss if you are interested in conversation tactics.
Mirroring is different from what your parent comment talks about. Mirroring is simply about repeating, verbatim, the last part of what someone said. So as a response to your comment it might be something like "Conversation tactics."
Your parent comment seems to be talking more about summarising someone else's point in your own words, which is a deeper reflection on what someone means, and an even stronger signal that you're actively listening. (That summary is what gets you a "that's right" in the terminology of Voss. Mirroring is used to get your counterparty to expand on what they're saying, not just go "that's right.")
Your parent comment seems to be talking more about summarising someone else's point in your own words, which is a deeper reflection on what someone means, and an even stronger signal that you're actively listening. (That summary is what gets you a "that's right" in the terminology of Voss. Mirroring is used to get your counterparty to expand on what they're saying, not just go "that's right.")
If I'm understanding you correctly, Mirroring is simply about repeating, verbatim, the last part of what someone said, right?
That's right. It's repeating the last part of what someone said.
Or did.
E.g. you are on a business meeting and your counterpart just took his glass of wine and sipped. Mirror it and sip your wine a few seconds later. Or do it with your hot date.
Mirroring works. Most of the time.
As apparently does using someone's name. Most (not all) people like hearing their name. Try to find out if they like or dislike hearing their name and either use their name a lot or very very seldomly.
I.e. for most people even in a 1 to 1 conversation say "Thank you Brent" and not just "Thank you".
E.g. you are on a business meeting and your counterpart just took his glass of wine and sipped. Mirror it and sip your wine a few seconds later. Or do it with your hot date.
Mirroring works. Most of the time.
As apparently does using someone's name. Most (not all) people like hearing their name. Try to find out if they like or dislike hearing their name and either use their name a lot or very very seldomly.
I.e. for most people even in a 1 to 1 conversation say "Thank you Brent" and not just "Thank you".
I do like hearing my name but find salespeople repeating it incredibly annoying, mechanical and insulting.
If you’re pitching me your new product you get one “that’s a great question” and one ridiculous insertion of my name before you get a hard no.
Coincidentally these crappy tactics usually go with crappy products so it’s an easy win.
If you’re pitching me your new product you get one “that’s a great question” and one ridiculous insertion of my name before you get a hard no.
Coincidentally these crappy tactics usually go with crappy products so it’s an easy win.
Entirely serious question; is this intended to work over text? It might just be me, but seeing the same text highly visible in two comments by two people makes it stick out in an awkward way.
It wasn't about repeating the last part -- it was about repeating the important main things in what the other person said.
I think that can work in text.
(Or repeat the things you want to hear more about. And s/he will tend to understand and talk more about that.)
I think that can work in text.
(Or repeat the things you want to hear more about. And s/he will tend to understand and talk more about that.)
heh, I see what you did there :)
On a side note I found the book to be interesting, and I used few of his techniques to negotiate price of my now current house.
On a side note I found the book to be interesting, and I used few of his techniques to negotiate price of my now current house.
That's right. Just what you said, that is right. :-)
No, mirroring also includes copying non-verbal cues. And sometimes, suddenly not mirroring is also effective to draw attention and make a point.
> suddenly not mirroring
Sounds like a candid camera experiment waiting to happen
Anti mirroring the interviewers / recruiters during an interview
Sounds like a candid camera experiment waiting to happen
Anti mirroring the interviewers / recruiters during an interview
No, instead, it's repeating the things the other person said that s/he thinks is important.
Which can be the last things, or not.
It's not enough to be a parrot -- one also need to understand the other person's perspective: what among the stuff s/he said, does she care the most about
(At least how I remember it)
Which can be the last things, or not.
It's not enough to be a parrot -- one also need to understand the other person's perspective: what among the stuff s/he said, does she care the most about
(At least how I remember it)
We used to call it discovery agreement when I was at IBM.
Summarizing what they said (show you understand it) but like you're just now discovering the truth behind it - together with them.
The only sales technique that's really stuck with me.
Summarizing what they said (show you understand it) but like you're just now discovering the truth behind it - together with them.
The only sales technique that's really stuck with me.
> Mirroring is different from what your parent comment talks about. Mirroring is simply about repeating, verbatim
well, that might be conversational mirroring, idk, but mirroring is a body language phenomenon, where one person crosses their arms, then the other does, one crosses legs, and the other one does, etc.
it's something people do naturally, unconsciously, and it indicates agreement.
then, it is suggested by salesman types, one should engage in a conscious (cynical) version of it where you mirror somebody on purpose, to make them think that you are in sync with them.
well, that might be conversational mirroring, idk, but mirroring is a body language phenomenon, where one person crosses their arms, then the other does, one crosses legs, and the other one does, etc.
it's something people do naturally, unconsciously, and it indicates agreement.
then, it is suggested by salesman types, one should engage in a conscious (cynical) version of it where you mirror somebody on purpose, to make them think that you are in sync with them.
I found that book by Chris Voss only interesting because of his stories as a hostage negotiator. But I wasn't able to put any of his advice into practice, not anything whatsoever. Am I overlooking something?
"Am I overlooking something?"
Oh, how clever. Using the "no" oriented questions already. I see what you are doing.
Things just got meta.
God, I just realized how hard they’re going to claim how much their company is discussed on the web.
Right, they should have been inspired by something less generic… like the alphabet - it worked for Google and Amazon (the logo has an arrow from A to Z). Feels like Meta is just as generic in that it can be used to describe everything.
All possible successor states of any state. - Leslie Lamport, via https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
What about "no" orientated questions? I tend to ask questions like this, but have never read Chris Voss' book.
If you still didn’t get it, you just used a method that Chris Voss recommended in his book.
I picked that up, I'm wondering what's special about "no" orientated questions and why he recommends them.
Or are you talking about my comment? In that case I'm quite confused.
E: ok this is amusing. I found this article: https://blog.blackswanltd.com/the-edge/how-to-get-buy-in-sta....
- Ask a "no-orietated" question
- Go silent (Effective pause so they can answer)
- Follow-up with a calibrated "what" or "how" question
- Repeat as necessary
This feels very similar to my default communication style, so it's funny to see it documented like this.
Or are you talking about my comment? In that case I'm quite confused.
E: ok this is amusing. I found this article: https://blog.blackswanltd.com/the-edge/how-to-get-buy-in-sta....
- Ask a "no-orietated" question
- Go silent (Effective pause so they can answer)
- Follow-up with a calibrated "what" or "how" question
- Repeat as necessary
This feels very similar to my default communication style, so it's funny to see it documented like this.
I use mirroring all the time, and anchoring pricing works really well in a world where people believe you should never be the first to state a number. I also think getting to understanding without accepting or agreeing is a really powerful lesson/technique. So considering how easy of a read that book is I think there's a decent pay-off.
What do you mean you weren't able? What happens when you try?
Robert Bolton dedicates three chapters to this technique in People Skills (1979), highly recommended.
Additionally, I feel like putting things into my own words can be helpful, or asking for further details.
“Ah okay, so ingress hits our service named BigMouth, which… acts as a load balancer and proxy essentially?”
“Ah okay, so ingress hits our service named BigMouth, which… acts as a load balancer and proxy essentially?”
It's a good book.
I wrote a little review + gist here: https://nts.strzibny.name/learning-negotiation-never-split-t...
I wrote a little review + gist here: https://nts.strzibny.name/learning-negotiation-never-split-t...
In the context of a project, it also gives the 'mirrored' a chance to reconsider.
100% agree.
This is not only useful for improving communication but for making other parties satisfied they are being heard.
I do this too and it gives people an opportunity to clarify their views, which everyone appreciates, and often leads to them explaining broader motivations which helps develop trust.
This is not only useful for improving communication but for making other parties satisfied they are being heard.
I do this too and it gives people an opportunity to clarify their views, which everyone appreciates, and often leads to them explaining broader motivations which helps develop trust.
Similarly, if you missed a part of what someone said, repeat back everything you did hear as part of the question. It confirms you were listening and avoids an excessively long or rephrased answered.
For example, "We reviewed <garbled> and found the events hadn't been logged." -> "You reviewed what and found the events hadn't been logged?"
For example, "We reviewed <garbled> and found the events hadn't been logged." -> "You reviewed what and found the events hadn't been logged?"
Other than the social hinting that “yes, I am listening and value what you’re saying”, I’ve found this technique to result in uncovering sincere misunderstandings much earlier in conversation which is invaluable.
It’s hard to clear the air after arguing about different things for 20 minutes.
It’s hard to clear the air after arguing about different things for 20 minutes.
Also it's not that rare that the other party forgets what their original stance on something is and in turn argue against you on that issue. Reminding them that hey this was your idea too can help you resolve that debate if it's unnecessary.
How could you possibly distinguish that from your own misunderstanding of their position?
By repeating it early (soon after being said) and often.
Oh, well if that's what you're doing, they probably haven't forgotten their original position. People usually try to save face and it takes a very high character to directly admit a change of mind.
I worked as international sales for a while. I had to make a lot of phone calls and take a lot of phone calls often from all over the world with less than ideal sound quality and drastically different accents.
When an angry customer called me to complain about shipment, product or what not, due to aforementioned difficulties associated with intl calls, I had to first make sure I understand what they were saying. I try my best to put together what the situation was and repeat back to them in my own words for them to confirm. I kid you not, angry customers always get much less angry once they realized that I understand their situation.
The emotional change resulted from being merely understood was so amazing and the interaction was always precious to me like I made a new friend.
When an angry customer called me to complain about shipment, product or what not, due to aforementioned difficulties associated with intl calls, I had to first make sure I understand what they were saying. I try my best to put together what the situation was and repeat back to them in my own words for them to confirm. I kid you not, angry customers always get much less angry once they realized that I understand their situation.
The emotional change resulted from being merely understood was so amazing and the interaction was always precious to me like I made a new friend.
This is a part of a type of inquiry called Clean Language Questions and it is indeed useful.
As someone who believes in this approach, this article doesn't give the right advice or level of detail about how you do this right as part of a management team. You can't just repeat "year of the hound" over and over again and expect the team to rally around it. You have to build a narrative, a story, get everyone to understand it, and then continue to bring people's work back to align against that.
So you start by identifying a problem or goal (or a few), and write it down, and walk everyone through why that's important. Then you talk to everyone about what they're working on - does that work ladder up to that problem or goal? How? Then on a regular basis, you talk about how the team is progressing against those problems/goals. Send out emails celebrating wins and specifically explain why they are important to those goals. Then if you hit a goal, you have a party, and you genuinely thank everyone involved in hitting that goal, and recognize them (even if it's everyone).
And by the same token, if people want to get distracted, you bring it back to those core goals - "hey, it sounds great that we've got this cool opportunity to expand into eastern europe if we internationalize the product, but how does that get us closer to our goal of getting 50% of our current enterprise customers fully rolled out with all critical feature requests addressed?"
You have to be able to tell a story, build a narrative, take criticism and debate, organically bring people's work back to the story, and so on. It's not EASY, but it's incredibly powerful when done well (and I am not saying I am great at this, I've seen people who do it beautifully, but I do it better than many people I have worked for).
So you start by identifying a problem or goal (or a few), and write it down, and walk everyone through why that's important. Then you talk to everyone about what they're working on - does that work ladder up to that problem or goal? How? Then on a regular basis, you talk about how the team is progressing against those problems/goals. Send out emails celebrating wins and specifically explain why they are important to those goals. Then if you hit a goal, you have a party, and you genuinely thank everyone involved in hitting that goal, and recognize them (even if it's everyone).
And by the same token, if people want to get distracted, you bring it back to those core goals - "hey, it sounds great that we've got this cool opportunity to expand into eastern europe if we internationalize the product, but how does that get us closer to our goal of getting 50% of our current enterprise customers fully rolled out with all critical feature requests addressed?"
You have to be able to tell a story, build a narrative, take criticism and debate, organically bring people's work back to the story, and so on. It's not EASY, but it's incredibly powerful when done well (and I am not saying I am great at this, I've seen people who do it beautifully, but I do it better than many people I have worked for).
This was one of the major practical lessons I got out of Thinking, Fast and Slow. Before reading that book I would try to get people to change by powerful logcal argument. I would get frustrated when people didn't immediately realise the potential I was explaining.
Having read that book, I've realised people need to hear something many times before their system 1 will even consider thinking of it as true. So these days, I have much more patience and I deliberately employ repetition strategies -- sometimes with powerful logical arguments, but sometimes without, too. It's about as effective either way, in my experience.
Saying "we need to also consider a solution that doesn't use Oracle" in different contexts and with different reasons attached over a few weeks time somehow mysteriously gets people to think that maybe we should at least consider a solution that doesn't use Oracle.
Having read that book, I've realised people need to hear something many times before their system 1 will even consider thinking of it as true. So these days, I have much more patience and I deliberately employ repetition strategies -- sometimes with powerful logical arguments, but sometimes without, too. It's about as effective either way, in my experience.
Saying "we need to also consider a solution that doesn't use Oracle" in different contexts and with different reasons attached over a few weeks time somehow mysteriously gets people to think that maybe we should at least consider a solution that doesn't use Oracle.
Mysteriously? People talk to each other and it gets around that hey, we'd better not use Oracle, kqr really hates them. Depending on your status in an org, that's enough to move mountains, or get you ejected (professionally and quietly). Oracle's an easy one to hate because programmers have issues about money, but other opinions require more depth before things can actually change. Eg hey let's switch programming languages!
I deliberately chose Oracle as the example for this comment, because I wanted to step on as few toes as possible. In reality, it's been about more contested topics. But I never try to frame it as me hating something. I always think of it in terms of actual realiseable costs and benefits.
"Tell ‘Em What You’re Going To Tell ‘Em; Next, Tell ‘Em; Next, Tell ‘Em What You Told ‘Em" - attributed to lots of people all the way back to Aristotle. [1]
I know this is not the same thing as the linked article but I just love this fundamental guidance to public speaking.
1. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/08/15/tell-em/
I know this is not the same thing as the linked article but I just love this fundamental guidance to public speaking.
1. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/08/15/tell-em/
Maybe off topic, but I take a lot of online courses (Pluralsight being the majority) and I find that this standard approach of “intro”, “content”, “summary” doesn’t add much for me.
It might just be a personal thing but it’s never felt useful and just serves to lower the signal to noise ratio. I always skip the intro and summary sections. I find the same with blog posts that religiously follow this structure.
Just tell me the actual information!
It could be a very subjective thing. I have a short attention span and will generally crank up the speed of these video courses too. I just want to quickly and efficiently extract the raw value without the fluff.
I don’t find it helps comprehension and retention. (For me, the only thing that does is immediately putting into practice what you learn).
It might just be a personal thing but it’s never felt useful and just serves to lower the signal to noise ratio. I always skip the intro and summary sections. I find the same with blog posts that religiously follow this structure.
Just tell me the actual information!
It could be a very subjective thing. I have a short attention span and will generally crank up the speed of these video courses too. I just want to quickly and efficiently extract the raw value without the fluff.
I don’t find it helps comprehension and retention. (For me, the only thing that does is immediately putting into practice what you learn).
The "intro / content / summary" structure is primarily useful in situations where:
1. The content is extensive, or
2. The information is being presented in real time without the opportunity for review.
Courses often use this structure because the primary audience are the students in the classroom, which fits criterion 2.
Written content roughly the length of a book chapter often follows this structure because they fit criterion 1. There's enough content that the intro and summary contribute non-trivial insights.
Short blog posts on trivial ideas use this format because of either SEO or cargo culting, I assume.
1. The content is extensive, or
2. The information is being presented in real time without the opportunity for review.
Courses often use this structure because the primary audience are the students in the classroom, which fits criterion 2.
Written content roughly the length of a book chapter often follows this structure because they fit criterion 1. There's enough content that the intro and summary contribute non-trivial insights.
Short blog posts on trivial ideas use this format because of either SEO or cargo culting, I assume.
Yes, very good insights.
Online learning content seems to unnecessarily and blindly follow this structure even when a lot of the time neither 1 or 2 apply. Perhaps because face-to-face courses would traditionally do the same.
The ability to rewind, slow down, rewatch etc. for online content removes a lot of the need for extensive intros and summaries. But there are certain scenarios where it's still a valid structure.
Online learning content seems to unnecessarily and blindly follow this structure even when a lot of the time neither 1 or 2 apply. Perhaps because face-to-face courses would traditionally do the same.
The ability to rewind, slow down, rewatch etc. for online content removes a lot of the need for extensive intros and summaries. But there are certain scenarios where it's still a valid structure.
> "Tell ‘Em What You’re Going To Tell ‘Em; Next, Tell ‘Em; Next, Tell ‘Em What You Told ‘Em"
“This is not a source of value!”
— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFwVf5a3pZM#t=41m40s
“This is not a source of value!”
— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFwVf5a3pZM#t=41m40s
Even low-level management is a lot better at repeating themselves than I am. They make sure everybody knows something changes even if they have to go explain it ten times. They say it in every meeting so that when developers are designing things, we say "$MANAGER is going to want us to do X". I tend to just write my canonical version of something and say it once, expecting people to take notes to remember like I would do.
Reminds me a bit of the old Ribbonfarm post "CEOs Don't Steer"
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/11/09/ceos-dont-steer/
He basically makes the argument that companies live or die by their focus on a long term strategy, and the role of the CEO is to basically be the human embodiment of that strategy. The CEO repeats themself over and over and over again so that everyone at the company intuitively knows what they want and what direction to move it.
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/11/09/ceos-dont-steer/
He basically makes the argument that companies live or die by their focus on a long term strategy, and the role of the CEO is to basically be the human embodiment of that strategy. The CEO repeats themself over and over and over again so that everyone at the company intuitively knows what they want and what direction to move it.
Related: What Do Executives Do, Anyway? struck me with its succinct description that the CEO is always the least informed person in the room, being furthest from the action in almost every aspect.
And, like your reference, also maintains that they ratify decisions that are in line with the company values.
https://apenwarr.ca/log/20190926
And, like your reference, also maintains that they ratify decisions that are in line with the company values.
https://apenwarr.ca/log/20190926
Repetition is needed more for cementing falsehoods than truths. Thus, we encounter falsehoods repeated overwhelmingly more often than truths. Falsehoods get more backing, so win remarkably often.
Corollary is that much of what you have been told, and have come to believe implicitly, is false. It is your inborn responsibility as a human to discover which are falsehoods, and root out behaviors based on them. The project has barely begun.
Corollary is that much of what you have been told, and have come to believe implicitly, is false. It is your inborn responsibility as a human to discover which are falsehoods, and root out behaviors based on them. The project has barely begun.
I've worked with a lot of execs or managers who seem surprised that after they say something, one time, in a meeting, it didn't register with the team.
People some time don't pay attention. Or they do, but they forget. They have habits in their actions and way of thinking.
So I agree. You have to repeat yourself.
People some time don't pay attention. Or they do, but they forget. They have habits in their actions and way of thinking.
So I agree. You have to repeat yourself.
It might be because managers talk all the time while saying nothing. So nobody really listens anymore. It was certainly true in most meetings I experienced.
I ignore any ideas management has if they only mention it once. Twice or more and I might start considering that they’re serious
At a previous job I did this too. Ignore for a week, if it comes up again, then somebody actually cares about it and it's not an off the cuff comment.
Current job, no so much, it's really dependent on the culture of the workplace.
Current job, no so much, it's really dependent on the culture of the workplace.
Yeah it definitely depends on how seriously I take them as a person. Some actually think things through while most just feel like they have to tell me every random idea that pops in their heads
Could you elaborate why that’s relevant?
From the wikipedia article:
> In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively hearing that a certain fact is wrong can affect the hearer's beliefs.[4] Researchers attributed the illusory truth effect's impact on participants who knew the correct answer to begin with, but were persuaded to believe otherwise through the repetition of a falsehood, to "processing fluency".
> The illusory truth effect plays a significant role in such fields as election campaigns, advertising, news media, and political propaganda.
From the article:
> When selling a company, a product, or an idea to customers, employees, investors, candidates, repeating a consistent message several times embosses the message upon the individual’s memory. It establishes clarity: Redpoint is a leading venture capital firm.
It's not that hard, seriously. This is a staple of propaganda repackaged into low quality blogspam.
Let's take `Redpoint is a leading venture capital firm.`. What does that even mean? Leading what? In what? It's a pointless meaningless phrase. But if you hear it often enough it becomes 'truth' in whatever the context you're in at that point.
Basically one of the major ways in which we manufacture, package and sell bullshit.
> In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively hearing that a certain fact is wrong can affect the hearer's beliefs.[4] Researchers attributed the illusory truth effect's impact on participants who knew the correct answer to begin with, but were persuaded to believe otherwise through the repetition of a falsehood, to "processing fluency".
> The illusory truth effect plays a significant role in such fields as election campaigns, advertising, news media, and political propaganda.
From the article:
> When selling a company, a product, or an idea to customers, employees, investors, candidates, repeating a consistent message several times embosses the message upon the individual’s memory. It establishes clarity: Redpoint is a leading venture capital firm.
It's not that hard, seriously. This is a staple of propaganda repackaged into low quality blogspam.
Let's take `Redpoint is a leading venture capital firm.`. What does that even mean? Leading what? In what? It's a pointless meaningless phrase. But if you hear it often enough it becomes 'truth' in whatever the context you're in at that point.
Basically one of the major ways in which we manufacture, package and sell bullshit.
Thanks for elaborating.
I agree with your overall premise. Then again it seems like that this is one way people can become successful. There is value in knowing.
PS: What if the method is applied to something, which has some real substance? And not on something pointless like the phrase you cited.
I agree with your overall premise. Then again it seems like that this is one way people can become successful. There is value in knowing.
PS: What if the method is applied to something, which has some real substance? And not on something pointless like the phrase you cited.
> PS: What if the method is applied to something, which has some real substance? And not on something pointless like the phrase you cited.
The word 'propaganda' has a negative connotation. But there is 'good' propaganda, or propaganda which is done for a good or valuable cause. A recent example would be pro-vaccine propaganda.
The word 'propaganda' has a negative connotation. But there is 'good' propaganda, or propaganda which is done for a good or valuable cause. A recent example would be pro-vaccine propaganda.
And that's yet another reason why we have to have ad blockers.
I suppose due to paragraphs like this:
> When selling a company, a product, or an idea to customers, employees, investors, candidates, repeating a consistent message several times embosses the message upon the individual’s memory. It establishes clarity: Redpoint is a leading venture capital firm.
> When selling a company, a product, or an idea to customers, employees, investors, candidates, repeating a consistent message several times embosses the message upon the individual’s memory. It establishes clarity: Redpoint is a leading venture capital firm.
I get what supposed to be happening
but, please don't keep repeating yourself in meetings it's annoying
but, please don't keep repeating yourself in meetings it's annoying
If it's annoying, it's working.
To make it less annoying, signal that you have the message by voicing the same memes. Once it's obvious that enough people get it, those people can start repeating something else instead.
To make it less annoying, signal that you have the message by voicing the same memes. Once it's obvious that enough people get it, those people can start repeating something else instead.
i understand that, but once certain pepele are talking there is no way they're being interrupted
also, some people just keeping repeating stuff in slightly different ways
I suspect sometimes this is not planned but they're thinking out loud
also, some people just keeping repeating stuff in slightly different ways
I suspect sometimes this is not planned but they're thinking out loud
Many teachers (of various things, not just academics) say the same thing.
It makes a lot of sense. Almost everyone here will know about spaced repetition and SuperMemo, but even improperly spaced repetition (rapid repetition during a speech or lesson) is almost certainly better than no repetition.
Are there any studies that badly spaced repetition can be neutral or negatively affect recall?
It makes a lot of sense. Almost everyone here will know about spaced repetition and SuperMemo, but even improperly spaced repetition (rapid repetition during a speech or lesson) is almost certainly better than no repetition.
Are there any studies that badly spaced repetition can be neutral or negatively affect recall?
No. More repetition is always better. Proper spacing comes in only when you want to maximise retention with a fixed amount of repetition. (Source: Hoffman, Ward, Feltovich, et al. 2013. Recommended read if you're into that sort of stuff!)
> Hoffman, Ward, Feltovich, et al. 2013
For those who wondered: Accelerated Expertise: Training for High Proficiency in a Complex World
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17399473-accelerated-exp...
For those who wondered: Accelerated Expertise: Training for High Proficiency in a Complex World
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17399473-accelerated-exp...
> (Source: Hoffman, Ward, Feltovich, et al. 2013. Recommended read if you're into that sort of stuff!)
I’m very curious. How did you come across this book? It seems very niche.
I’m very curious. How did you come across this book? It seems very niche.
Edit: Oh, sorry, I misread your question entirely.
I don't remember, unfortunately. I get most of my book recommendations from authors of other books I like, and sometimes from HN. So probably one of those two!
This book in particular lies close to the naturalistic decision making (NDM) research, which I associate primarily with Gary Klein, which in my mental knowledge graph has an antagonistic connection to Kahneman and Tversky, so it might have been along that path. Or one of the millions of side paths that also connect those two. Or something else entirely.
Original comment based on misreading below.
----
Depending on where the emphasis of your question lies, there are two questions in your comment.
1. Why do people publish research about such a niche subject? It seems that a lot of organisations have a self-interest in finding out how experts come to be such, and if there's a way to optimise that path.
2. How come this niche stuff is collected into a book rather than some other format? You wouldn't believe what kind of niche books there are out there!
I don't remember, unfortunately. I get most of my book recommendations from authors of other books I like, and sometimes from HN. So probably one of those two!
This book in particular lies close to the naturalistic decision making (NDM) research, which I associate primarily with Gary Klein, which in my mental knowledge graph has an antagonistic connection to Kahneman and Tversky, so it might have been along that path. Or one of the millions of side paths that also connect those two. Or something else entirely.
Original comment based on misreading below.
----
Depending on where the emphasis of your question lies, there are two questions in your comment.
1. Why do people publish research about such a niche subject? It seems that a lot of organisations have a self-interest in finding out how experts come to be such, and if there's a way to optimise that path.
2. How come this niche stuff is collected into a book rather than some other format? You wouldn't believe what kind of niche books there are out there!
Thanks! It’s always interesting when someone posts some new portal of knowledge into a niche that I didn’t realize existed. Especially when there’s already a nice book summing up the field. I hadn’t heard of NDM before, except maybe tangentially through reading Thinking Fast and Slow, so I’ll take a look.
Hello! I’ve been a heavy user of SuperMemo for almost 16 years (January 23 is my SuperMemo anniversary!). Initially I thought SuperMemo was going to “think for me,” but the more I used it, I realized that it’s actually just augmenting my memory, enhancing it like a fancy robot arm would help a victim of a lost limb (Think Metal Gear Solid 5).
[deleted]
You know what's better than fortune cookie advice? Providing the context for when that advice is applicable.
These types of blogs (and fortune cookie thinkers in general) routinely do 'you have to have laser focus', followed by 'don't put all of your eggs in one basket' without any hint of irony or self awareness.
These types of blogs (and fortune cookie thinkers in general) routinely do 'you have to have laser focus', followed by 'don't put all of your eggs in one basket' without any hint of irony or self awareness.
I feel attacked. ;)
I find my internal conflict with DRY and what's actually necessary for leadership (yes, repeat, repeat often, then repeat again) continually show up, but absolute, the best teachers and leaders tend to say the same thing over and over again.
I find my internal conflict with DRY and what's actually necessary for leadership (yes, repeat, repeat often, then repeat again) continually show up, but absolute, the best teachers and leaders tend to say the same thing over and over again.
humans are herd-creatures after all. They take repetition for relevance.
[deleted]
Repeat Yourself, a Lot
It’s honestly amazing to me how much mileage I’ve gotten out of simply saying, “I heard you say X about Y. Does that sound right to you?” a couple of times during discussions just to make sure that everyone is clear that we’re all discussing the same thing.
It seems like “common sense” to clarify your understanding of someone else’s communication but I haven’t run into very many people who actually take the time to do it.