Conversation

Replying to
Writing is fairly directed, good for maintaining a train of thought for long periods. The “scratchpad” of writing-so-far supports flimsy working memory, allowing more constituent thoughts to be juggled in synthesis. It’s a bit easy to iterate on something specific.
1
1
9
Conversation will jump between more threads; it’s rare to focus on one idea for hours. But it may be more generative both because it’s less focused and because it involves others. The stakes for making progress often feel lower than for writing… which can be either good or bad.
1
1
14
Long solo contemplative walks have low stakes—maybe lower than in conversation—but can linger somewhat longer on a single thread than might be socially comfortable in a conversation. It’s easier to just zone out, though, which might or might not be helpful.
1
2
17
Just being bored, sitting somewhere, can be comparatively quite generative: helpful thoughts might arise which would feel too off-topic to pursue otherwise! Or I might just end up with a more expansive mental state, to be deployed in one of the other methods.
1
14
Sitting comfortably and pondering an idea (without much writing) is less directed than writing but more directed than many of the others; it’s easy to maintain threads, but maybe not for hours. Feels a little more distant from the problem than writing, which can be helpful.
2
9
Replying to
Three more come to mind: • Explaining/rubber ducking. Distinct from conversation, more fluid than writing. • Diagramming. Unlike narratives, different forms of diagrams make it easy to reduce specificity but preserve presence. • I have recorded voice notes mid-walk.
4
Replying to
Message board argument. More formal than a conversation, less formal than “real” writing. At its best it encourages a kind of virtuosic discourse - the spontaneous flow of speech with the rigorous research and careful composition of writing.
1
12