Conversation

I like this tweet a lot, mostly because it captures a cognitive misfire I keep seeing in industry. 1. Person A describes a real world case, often an existence proof of a unique process that works 2. Person B tries to map the case back to a generic concept, losing all nuance.

Quote Tweet

Ken Kocienda

@kocienda

Aug 28

Replying to @sankam

Why do you feel the need to fit your chosen terminology onto a different way of working?

2:00 AM · Aug 29, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

An alternate way of looking at this? Person B isn’t ‘suppressing their views’:

commoncog.com

Believability in Practice

Believability is a criterion for evaluating practical advice, originally articulated by Ray Dalio in his 2017 book Principles. These are some notes from practice.

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

Aug 29

Exhibit B:

Replying to

Even if the answer was "yes", it's difficult to see what the conclusion would be. Find someone with Steve Jobs' level of taste and persuade them to take a PM role?

Replying to

Hypothesis: People can only learn from other people via analogy? They then have to internalize by experimentation. The more public the area of knowledge the more analogies are available, the more likely an analogy exists to fit a person's own experience.

Replying to

and

Experts differentiate in areas where the analogies don't relate to non-experts

@yawnathan

Aug 31

Replying to

@ejames_c

"restate for clarity" should allow people to refine their perspectives on a shared communication model until each person is satisfied with the info exchange. context always matters. error-checking helps. priorities will manifest, one way or the other.