Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Jul 12, 2020

It’s an important question! I’ve found it helpful to recognize the essential fuzziness of taste—means that “communicate” and “teach” are probably inappropriately precise. But cognitive apprenticeship seems one reliable avenue to “develop” or “influence” stylistic lenses.

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Jul 12, 2020

It’s probably not that you’re just not doing it well! I suspect many of the ideas you want to convey are essentially nebulous and simply can’t be formalized in that way. Case studies, storytelling, “medical mysteries,” etc are useful artifacts in this domain, vs “frameworks"

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

and

Right. I think artifacts really help even in ideal circumstances! My hunch is that (1) is, regrettably, largely intractable. I’ve seen orgs solve (2) by incentivizing those superb ICs to focus on others who can take on the same role—but it may require adjusting hiring mix / rate.

5:21 PM · Jul 12, 2020TweetDeck

Replying to

(I know distributed teams are the thing these days, but I still know of no sizable distributed team producing outstanding creative work. Hopefully we’ll figure it out, but I think it’s worth acknowledging and deeply grappling with the (total?) absence of success stories…)

Replying to

and

Echoing this. The challenge with artifacts is that they often represent a finished product and not the process. The expertise and the transmission of expert knowledge occurs in real time, not retrospectively. Very hard to teach post-hoc.