If shrug-guy is anything like me, he sat there blurting out half-baked ideas and then shooting them down all in his internal monologue, instead of out loud.

For me, I sometimes feel like I'm an old school chess engine, exploring as many possible moves/ideas as I can - as many steps into the future as time allows. Constantly evaluating them based on some known-simplified fitness function usually involving pattern recognition from past experience in similar problems. Eventually I arrive at a place where I'm either confident I know a reasonable way forward (and why some of the obvious ways forward are unlikely to be ideal) - or I've scatter-gun searched all of the quickly available ideas and discovered I have no idea if some of them are good or bad, and I need to do much deeper research and investigation of the problem.

From the outside, that'd look identical to "he could go completely silent, just staring straight ahead with his fingers to his lips"

▲

godelski 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, but isn't there still an advantage to this? If two people are silently doing this then they don't influence one another as much, helping find a wider range of solutions as well as identify issues with certain solutions that the other might not have seen.

Instead if you're blurting out your thinking more in unison. Naturally you'll stray less, exploring less.

Of course you want collaboration but I find the magic is going back and forth between alone and together. I even find this helpful when just working by myself, stepping away from the problem or context switching, allowing the problem to distill.

▲

jaredsohn 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Another way to think of it is if you're blurting out your thinking you're reducing redundant work and perhaps inspiring the other person to think of additional solutions that are offshoots of what you're dismissing. I see merits to both ways of looking at this.

	▲	vnorilo 30 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Probably true for many. When thinking about hard problems I'm usually not thinking in language, at least not the kind we speak between us humans, so it can be incredibly distracting if I have to "translate" back and forth while both thinking and communicating.
	▲	godelski 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah I agree but that's why I think there's a balance. But the context here is the more nervous blurting which I think is going too much in the other direction. We should be comfortable with some silence and thinking. But everyone has their own personal preferences. Which is perfectly fine too. But I think it's worth mentioning that, as illustrated by the comment, it's typically more acceptable to blurt than think silently. And there's the bias that blurting makes it harder to think silently by thinking silently doesn't make blurting harder (the uncomfortable with some silence part is not healthy imo. Of course long silence is a different issue but we're talking 30-60s)

▲

jcims 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I had the same thoughts reading this. I think there’s an optimal blend of blurters and thinkers, one isn’t better than the other. I find that I do both, it just kind of depends on my comfort with the subject matter.