I'll do my best to make a high-signal comment here, but it will be drowned by all the other replies, which also likely touch on these points.

First, "slow-thinking" is really just a different way of expressing your thinking and you should begin by leaning into it rather than leaning away. Take time, allow yourself to pause to collect your thoughts. People often interpret quietness (not filler) as intelligence and maturity (because usually it is). Alternatively not answering is also valid.

Second, as a person who is generally regarded as quick-witted and sharp, most of that sharpness comes from either having a few pre-known responses to ideas or anxiously revising situations in my head ahead of time. This is, generally, a bad thing because it means I have made decisions on how I will respond to things without all of the information (as some will come over during conversation). Methodically thinking things through, fresh, is probably the only realistic way to be open minded.

Finally, do your best to avoid situations where a "quick decision" is needed; this is good advice even for "quick thinkers". Fast decisions are often poor ones - the counterpoint to that is dragging something out over many weeks or across many meetings - but putting yourself in a situation where the unknowns become knowns or the scope of the landscape and weight of the decision can be properly assessed is important. What's better is that you will likely be able to have a better paper trail for this.

One absolutely final piece of advice: Avoid using the word "slow", use "deliberate" instead.

If you have to make a 'quick decision', one of the pieces of advice I've heard is to try to make the smallest possible good decision that will move the ball forward. Often getting started is enough to provide more information needed to make a better long term decision, but making the best possible, smallest decision will rarely get you into trouble.

The tradeoff of this kind of incremental planning and execution is that it becomes more reactive and myopic. You can end up stuck at a local maxima or worse, just executing a random walk.

I think a large part of becoming "quick" in an effective way is to improve your triage skills. This is a meta-decision process where you quickly estimate the time-dependent risks and priorities.

I know we can’t always change the world we live in, but we can at least acknowledge it. In the corporate world people really like to pretend there is a fire, when few things are truly urgent. If you can keep the sky from falling down with a quick and small scoped decision, you free up time to make big and long term decisions slowly.

It's like gradient descent for humans

From experience, it doesn't work, especially in a group setting. People usually end up trying to guess what you want to say, or add on to what they said, or move on, or something. But they very rarely just wait patiently for me to think things through.

I'd challenge that. I think that being both quick and sharp comes from having an accurate mental model of what kind of information is important for the decision. When new information comes in, you don't discount it, but you have an intuitive feel for how much it should affect your priors.

For example, say that your team works on a minor page of a major tech product, say something that only gets 0.1% of traffic. Your TL reports back that a change they made to an ads widget on the page drops conversions by 20%. The change was done in service of a visual design consistency effort across the company. Normally a drop in conversions by 20% would be an immediate no-go, but knowing that the page only gets 0.1% of traffic, you can run the math and figure this is a 0.02% decrease in revenue, almost imperceptible.

Now imagine that the news was that 3 other key products in the company are dropping the visual consistency effort. The right move here is probably to cancel the project, because if you go ahead with it but others don't, you actually make the consistency worse. You can't know that without knowing the context and reasoning behind the initial decision. Normally, when an unrelated product cancels a project, it doesn't matter to you.

This sounds very admirable to me

Major problems then arise if I have already started to answer the question to avoid an awkward pause, and realize several words in I don't like the answer. Finding a way out of the words you have started then feels like texting while driving along the road with 100 km/h.

I have been in several interview situations in my life (including two on national radio), and the ones that went well were usually the ones where I either knew the questions beforehand, or in which I was asked questions I had already thought of and memorized an interesting answer.

Remember too that you can redirect questions. They might never ask about your best friend as a kid, but you have rehearsed the story of something you did and that story can be used as an example for 20 different questions. While telling that story you don't really need to think about it so instead you get that entire time to figure out the conclusion where you tie the story back to the question.

Being interviewed is a skill. You can practice it.

Run through your slides in front of your rubber duck, as if they're the audience.

You want to program your brain to work like a soundboard - for topic X, say "Y". I find it helps me greatly to have these prebaked responses ready to go, and I get to choose when I'm talking whether I adlib entirely or just repeat the same script i trained.

Often even during the talk there would be times I'd feel out of it, distracted, or something else. Then you just do rote script until your brain recovers and you can be fully "on" again.

Finally, people LOVE hearing stories. So the more stories you can work into your answers or your presentation, people will stay engaged. This is a common thread from watching many very competent presenters at cons

Be wrong and say stupid things. You will be corrected or correct yourself. Accept the correction and move on. If you feel very wrong, turn it into a question? Instead of feeding back to anxiety you’ll feed back to speech.

He should always be prepared to talk about his first interest in music. His first time touching a piano. Why he choose piano (which may have been his parents forcing it at first). What other instruments he plays. What is favorite music is. Details about whatever piece is performing now (maybe spoilers on what he is practicing but not yet performing). Ideally he should listen to modern music so he can connect to kids by talking about something popular today (maybe even play a piano arrangement of it).

Those are the basics that he should have an easy time talking about. If he unexpectedly wins an award he didn't expect to be in competition for he might be speechless, but for the above the answers should be easy.

Now if he decides giving interviews isn't what he wants to do and thus switching to a different job where he doesn't have to give interviews (and also will not play publicly much) is the right choice I will not fault him for that. It is his choice and his alone.

I see. I had no idea that was a requirement of being a professional pianist. This all read as incredibly pointless with me thinking that interviews were a side thing for a pianist.

What, the piano show he performs? Why would that be the pianist's job? Wouldn't that be the venue's responsibility?

Edit: I had to look him up. Quote Wikipedia:

> Igor Levit is a Russian-German pianist who focuses on the works of Bach, Beethoven, and Liszt. He is also a professor at the Musikhochschule Hannover.

So it's not like he's taking gigs in dive bars. Do renowned classical musicians typically shoulder the burden of promoting their own performances... through radio interviews?

I suffer from it myself and i'm definitely better at answering by email than in an oral discussion when i'm overwhelmed by thoughts and can't focus on one.

Only few people in France know about this sequence involving Diderot and the king, and I only know about it because I’ve lived in… California.

edit: typo

If it were intentional, I could see it being admirable. But I do wish I could think a bit more on the spot in some situations.

I've found that creating a shared document or flowchart can work wonders if key team members engage and build upon it. And once everyone has said their share you can then have a meeting to discuss how to progress. I've found this method to work well as you can take your time to reply to suggestions and comments and research them better. It also removes and element of emotionality from the decision making: everyone can see the suggestions and counter points, but the conversation is often less defensive and more considered as people have time to second guess themselves. So by the time you hold the meeting the benefits and drawbacks of the contending options in meeting your goals are clearer.

Sometimes the meeting or call is about an emerging urgent situation. Even then, the decision is probably not needed this minute. Not before there is what input there is to find. That first meeting might then be more about figuring out what input or data might be available.

That's not that cause for me. I just grasp things quickly.

> Avoid using the word "slow", use "deliberate" instead.

That sounds inclusive but isn't what Kahneman meant. Slow thinking is when you leave it to your subconscious, so the only deliberate thing would be to give it time and put your conscious mind elsewhere. So in that way the two terms wouldn't be interchangeable in a 'Thinking fast and slow' sense.

In response to OP, to me the exercise that helped me the most is to put myself into situations where a quick decision is needed but in case of a mistake the consequences are not that bad, just like in drama theatre you get better at improvisation by not having a script to follow.

More that anything else I agree with a) taking the time, and b) keeping an option to avoid the answer altogether.

I don't know if I qualify as a "slow" or "fast" thinker - I actually think that no one qualifies as either and it all depends on your experience in the topic at hand - but I have my share of situations where I cannot get my thoughts together. With --age-- experience I taught myself to feel comfortable with taking my time (reasonable amount, though) or just saying "let me think of it and come back to you later" (if I feel the pause can become unreasonably long). Most people I am surrounded with understand and accept it well.

1. How can I tell if this information is true ie what else would need to be true if this is correct?

2. If this is true, what are the implications of this new data ie what has changed in our plans?

3. Given these implications, what do I need to do different?

I find that questions around these help me (and the rest of the audience) better understand the issue very quickly and help me get up to speed quickly.

But, externally, no one's gonna see this shit so it's just something one has to get comfortable knowing about themselves but not other people. We often advise people a "lowest common denominator" type of logic because philosophically, it's impossible to know what the actual fuck.

the way to get fast is to do some caching, if you already explored the domain and stored the answers for it you can just remember the information.

the problem is when the caching is done wrong. you explored only a subset but thought you explored everything.

the other kind of fast thinking is when you go bullshiter route and act like an LLM you fast interpolate between known data-points without system2 validation and give plausible looking answers with full confidence, you'd be amazed by how many people get fooled by this.

There are problems that legitimately must be sat with for months if not years.

Furiously responding to potential ways to solve a problem might just use a lot of energy.

I find this easier said than done. I dislike most meetings because I don't think quickly enough to keep up and contribute to the discussion. That often means that others will make decisions that I could have contributed usefully to before I've had the chance to think deliberately about the question.

And when it's come out how I want it to, it's understandable to the third parties. Deliberate equates to clear and intelligible.

That's a great way to hear god laugh. Jokes aside - if the quick decision can be "walked back" or is not detrimental if you decide wrong then it doesn't matter and you should probably decide quickly to get through the "maze of life"

My son is/was quite bright - reading at 3, reading the Economist and understanding 20% of it at 5, teaching himself calculus at 7. He got terrible grades in school maths, and his teachers thought he was lazy because he so obviously understood the material.

With some cognitive testing at age 6, he was placed "somewhere over 2nd stdev" (they just stop after a bit) for most cognitive subjects... but when taking response time tests he would drop to 2nd percentile. Second percentile! You could ask him to to find the root of a simple quadratic, and he would think about it and get the answer, then ask him to name the first five even numbers, and he would take about the same amount of time. His processing speed was (and is) just slow. In school, many marks went towards "flash tests" and speed competitions in math. He couldn't get through the first half of the tests, he'd run out of time. He's in third year honours maths at uni now, favourite topic is abstract algebra. They give him more time on tests.

My point is that this is real for some people, it's not just practice or technique or rehearsing.

Additionally, you also want a fair number of problems in any given test to reduce the variance in the grades, and you want the student to be able to finish a significant number exercises that can truly cover the breadth of the content to learn, hopefully with more than one approach as well. If a student takes 2h to solve a problem there is no way they will be able to complete enough of a problem set.

Of course, there are outliers. But personally, especially given my shorter attention span, the ability to do math correctly and quickly was absolutely crucial, and I wouldn't have been able to pass otherwise.

This is a specific example, and the general point is that there a multiple ways of doing things. If a child can avoid 1 step and skip straight to the result more efficiently, that is a valid way of solving a problem.

Many school systems make difference between the ability to solve a problem, and the ability to solve a problem a certain way. Sometimes the first is all that's asked, but when that way of doing things is necessary later, then the second is asked of you.

The point is that you want to prepare the child for what they will need in the future. Sure, perhaps you are doubly exceptional and will be able to adapt on the fly in the future, but you can't design a school system around extremely uncommon students.

I say this as another 2E student that had very similar issues. There is no good way of fixing it except maybe by giving special accommodations to these students. I repeatedly failed exams exactly because I would skip steps this way, but there is no sense fundamentally changing the entire school system and hurting the majority for that.

Because accommodating every kid's needs is expensive, and society is not willing to pay for it.

An individual who has "mastered the material" can answer quickly irrespective of their smarts: they learnt both the fundamental concepts and the derivatives in preparation for the test, and can commence answering the question immediately from the derivatives.

An individual who has not "mastered the material", but is smart, can start with the fundamentals, work out the derivatives, then commence answering the question: but only given enough time.

So tests which include a time element are, or should be, knowledge tests, and not an intelligence, or 'ability to answer the question', test.

E.g. https://neurosciencenews.com/iq-decision-speed-23377/ "Researchers discovered that people with higher IQs are quicker when solving simple tasks but slower when dealing with complex problems."

I’ve learned to accept it and manage expectations with people.

One thing I discovered about myself was for many things I have a “gut feel” that I trust unquestioningly. I might not be able to explain why something is wrong/right, but I know it is. Given a bit of time, I can explain it sufficiently and convincingly.

I’ve never had the gift of quick answers with explanations. I’m okay with that.

[0]: http://www.psychologysalon.com/2012/01/overpathologization-d...

> That said, aside from getting funding for treatment or acceptance of accommodations...

Both of those can also be life-changing, but you make them sound like trivial details. They are not.

Certainly, funding for treatment and acceptance of accommodation can make a life-changing difference. That in part motivates many caring and concerned practitioners to widen diagnostic criteria, so that more people can access benefits. I can see how I came across as trivializing those benefits. Quite the contrary, though, I meant to express that yes, diagnostic labels can bring positive results, and we need to weigh those against the negative results, especially when other options exist.

This makes sense. By saying:

>Why bother?

You were describing how helpful a diagnosis can be.

Some things can lead to benefits, without themselves being beneficial.

In psychology, diagnosis is sometimes like that. It can lead to treatment, accommodation, and funding, but the diagnosis on its own may not be beneficial, may cause harm through stigma, and may not be necessary to access the benefits.

The alternative: when possible, provide the benefits without labeling the person as disordered.

Some people say ADHD for example is overdiagnosed. Perhaps that is true so college kids can get drugs or kids can be calmed down, but it is like saying people who don’t always wear glasses don’t need them and shouldn’t bother.

Because knowing about the presence of a condition is better than not. Depending on the severity, untreated ADHD during the years of life where a child begins to establish good study habits, management of the condition, and other tools that work for them, can lead to issue down the road and into adulthood. We have the ability to address conditions like dyscalcula with little interventions to help the student be successful.

Just because something is imperfect doesn’t mean it should disregarded completely if the benefits (academic, social, and career success) outweigh the drawbacks of being untreated. The stigma argument is just FUD and letting that take over decision making for the well-being of a child is a bad path to go down.

There are often, unknown to the parent, invisible scars that the child with a non-neurotypical condition will carry for the of their life after having found out about a condition they’ve had since birth and was not addressed during the most critical time of their life when early treatment could have greatly reduced the harm caused by this disorder.

You make a good point about the benefits of receiving treatment. I personally have received training in social skills, goal setting, relaxation exercises, and realistic thinking. I learned those skills to overcome specific challenges. I had some anxiety, like every normal person does, so I learned a skill for that. I had trouble dating, so I learned skills for that. I felt overwhelmed, so I learned goal setting for that. I thought I was stupid, so I learned realistic thinking to avoid overgeneralizing and labeling. Throughout that process, I brought my challenges to a psychologist, and the psychologist taught me skills. That approach offers a way to help people without diagnosis, by suggesting treatments for specific challenges.

Can we keep the early treatment and drop the diagnosis?

A diagnosis isn’t a “label”, but understanding of how someone works. It is like being diagnosed with myopia: it explains why your kid can’t keep up in school because they literally can’t see the chalkboard (me, had glasses before finishing 1st grade).

So, no we can’t drop the diagnosis. Chances are you may have something too and not realize it. Does that make you less human? No. It just means you think a little different.

Assuming you grew up in a loving home with stability, in theory you learn life skills as a kid that you don’t need training as an adult for. However, most people don’t have loving parents that stay together, love each other, and can teach you every skill. Some don’t know they have a brain that is different, and need specialized training that works with them. Because of childhood trauma and ADHD, I have had to learn other techniques to handle my life and executive dysfunction. Finally approaching 40 I’m starting to put it together.

So no, we can’t discard the diagnosis. It isn’t a label or problem, but an explanation and scientifically proven reason for the problematic behaviors seen.

Many years ago my family was trying to see Letterman in NYC. I wasn’t old enough, and we knew that going in. The night before, when I was supposed to be sleeping, I was going over what I thought I might need to know. When was my fake birthday, why don’t I have an ID, etc. On the day, I was asked these questions by security and gave a quick and natural answer. Afterword my dad commented that I was really quick and good at thinking on my feet, but the truth was that I prepared.

One skill I learned during grad school was spending lots of time going over conversations or presentations or even upcoming meetings in your head. This "warms up" your cache, and helps you play out possible Q&A, so that you have more opinions ready.

And another skill I learned was actually learning to control the meeting to a certain extent. I'd come in with something like a limited "choose your own adventure" conversation tree in my head, and then I'd try to present choices or questions to those I was meeting or talking with, so that I could at least have a fallback.

And finally with experience comes wit. The 10th time you enter a situation you're much more likely to have something to say than the 1st time. And eventually, you'll start to recognize similarities in conversations.

But yeah, lack of quick wit makes social and work situations more challenging. It's just hard to make myself have strong opinions on the spot usually.

I did debating in school and a lot of the prep was like this too — once you have your position sketched out, you put on your 'opposition hat' and start to critique your own position for holes.

Also, where in the HN guidelines it says — Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. — when you're prepping, you tend to do just the opposite: assume that someone _is_ going to attempt to respond to a weaker version that's easier to criticize.

It can help you have a rebuttal on the ready if needed but regardless it also helps you to distill/reframe ideas in a way that's clearer from the outset (which is a good thing in & of itself, even if you don't have someone taking a counter position)

Just wondering.

As a serious answer, just make liberal use of notes.

If you combine it with empathy skills: "What motivates this person", "What are their goals", "what are their interests/specialities" then you can work out a list of stock answers before hand, and alter them to suit the situation later on.

You still need to listen, as there is a non trivial risk of your mental model being wrong.

If you don’t have an answer at the time just say so and follow up later. Waiting for your turn to talk is disrespectful and painful to watch.

I should have been more clear, its more of a template, than a stock answer. Having a cache of information is not the same as "not listening". You still need to listen and respond to the subject at hand.

For example, you are having a meeting about door handles. You know there is a problem about the placing, but also one person is keen on changing the material because they like brass more. However brass is more expensive, so the team needs to agree a threshold at which it becomes practical to change to brass.

Now, if you had fresh in your cache a list of reasons why brass might be useful, and why its not, you can be prepared to counter or boost "that one brass Guy"'s point of view.

You don't go in and say "brass is shit yo" the subject might not come up.

That and also there's no rule that says a person who is generating responses ahead of time has to stick to exactly one possibility. When preparing for conversations it's important to walk down multiple paths at multiple branch points.

To the point you've been raising in this thread it is about being prepared to be sharp in a conversation, not to railroad the other person and/or come across like a politician on the Sunday AM talk shows.

Doing it well is like playing live jazz. You can practice the song, but if you don't listen to what your bandmates are doing, your awesome rehearsed solo is going to be bad.

I’m not following… surely you don’t mean interrupt the person speaking?

Politician sticks to his prepared talking points and riffs for fifteen minutes about something else.

Citizen feels disrespected.

Nothing but hot air.

I think you missed this part of the parent comment.

Nothing against failing as both outcomes are good learning scenario, though I think, def favor preparing for the most interesting failure is probably the best outcome.

But the person who could enforce that all meetings must have an agenda probably also uses the lack of an agenda to their advantage, so the status quo continues

True confidence produces results.

* I write everything down on calendars, to do lists, planners etc. * I have a smart speaker in every room so I can capture pieces of information as soon as I know about them. * I use many different kinds of timers to remind me of tasks, or to switch tasks from one to another. * I use checklists to help complete daily processes.

The best thing you can do is acknowledge your weaknesses, reflect on situations where you struggle and find specific techniques or processes that improve the outcome for you. It won't happen overnight. Good luck!

This correlates with ADHD.

I tend to think internally, and while I usually have a clear vision in my head of how a system works, if I try to translate that mental model on-the-fly into an explanation for others, it typically comes out as an incoherent jumble of loosely related phrases.

To that extent, I much prefer written communication. It gives me time to convert the thoughts in my head into English, and I typically iterate on what I’ve written down quite a few times until I’m satisfied with it (including Hacker News comments for example).

The one exception to being a “slow thinker” is if the discussion involves a topic I know very well and someone says something that is incorrect or inconsistent. While I can’t necessarily articulate my own ideas immediately on the spot, I do seem to be able to quickly identify and explain flaws in deductive reasoning or come up with examples that highlight inconsistencies.

I’m not sure I necessarily like that my brain defaults to looking for flaws in arguments rather than reasons to support them, but my own internal process of generating ideas consists of a cycle of proposing an idea to myself followed by immediately trying to find ways to shoot it down (such that whatever ideas survive this mental gauntlet are decent ones I guess). But I think this approach had the unfortunate side effect of optimizing the “quick thinking” part of my brain into that of an inconsistency-detector rather than a rapid brainstorming mechanism.

Just a thank you for describing what is my own self perception. I thought I was a broken weirdo. Well, maybe I still am, but at least I'm not alone!

May be due to how reasoning is a social activity humans evolved to save time and cognitive load via division of labor.

1. An individual's reasoning workload is reduced by forming a bias. The gaps left by this bias can be filled with others' reasoning. For example if Gail focuses on why a business idea is good and Bob focuses on why that same idea is bad, they reduced the total amount of reasoning required by 50%. 2. If strong reasons are always prepared for everything, effort is wasted when others are easy to convince. So people start with minimal effort, producing weak reasons (why the business idea is good or bad). Gail and Bob keep responding to each other's reasons with stronger reasons only until necessary. After reaching consensus further reasoning is not required.

Source: https://youtu.be/_ArVh3Cj9rw?t=969

In software engineering, I've found that this is very common. And if I look at what successful senior engineers have in common, it's that they've mastered a way to present complex technical information in a way that's easily understood. It's a super power.

When asked a question, I can give a great answer 10 minutes; an hour; a day later. It's not a full day of active thinking, but time is needed to "stew" in my mind for a while. So I give my best answer in the moment (which might be "I don't know"). Then I follow up with my awesome answer whenever it comes.

Slow thinking makes conversation more difficult. Anything beyond 1:1 conversation usually means the conversation flies faster than I can think. I'm OK with that and just enjoy listening to the conversation and occasionally contributing. On rare occasion this makes other people uncomfortable. However I have generally surrounded myself with people who accept my quiet nature.

Also slow thinking comes with its advantages. Embrace those. Despite being a slow thinker, my client repeatedly tells me that I deliver high-quality output really fast. He's always asking how I come up with these amazing ideas.

---

Derek Sivers says he's "a very slow thinker:"

> When someone wants to interview me for their show, I ask them to send me some questions a week in advance...

> People say that your first reaction is the most honest, but I disagree. Your first reaction is usually outdated. Either it’s an answer you came up with long ago and now use instead of thinking, or it’s a knee-jerk emotional response to something in your past.

> When you’re less impulsive and more deliberate like this, it can be a little inconvenient for other people, but that’s OK. Someone asks you a question. You don’t need to answer. You can say, “I don’t know,” and take your time to answer after thinking. Things happen...

HN discussion:

- https://hw.leftium.com/#/item/35039358

- https://hw.leftium.com/#/item/17694306

This is a very good point that's worth, uh, pointing out.

Being able to quickly reply is not necessarily a good thing. I've caught this in myself - making some witty response to a situation and then immediately realizing, "I haven't examined that opinion in years. I don't like it or believe it anymore. I wish I hadn't said that."

But without vocalizing that introspection, it may just appear that I'm witty and, depending on the listener, a bit of an asshole. Actually I'm less of an asshole than I used to be, but sometimes you're getting old data which hasn't been cleaned up yet.

"The first thought that goes through your mind is what you have been conditioned to think, what you think next defines who you are."

People fill voids and awkward situations by saying stuff, even if that stuff is wrong.

It's OK to be quiet. It's also OK to say 'Let me think about that'.

Lose some arguments.

And unless the situation you are in that requires a quick decision is life or death, it probably doesn't need one.

I tell people "I don't make decisions on the spot," or "I need to consider it, I'll respond by end of day," etc.

Great advice. Nothing shows confidence more than asking a question and then waiting for answer. Let the awkward silence sit.

And when you do speak, keep answers short and to the point. It also conveys confidence.

Anytime I see/hear someone rambling in email/on meeting, I know they are not confident in what they are saying.

Well then you are dismissing people unfairly. You won't hear a peep out of me if I don't know the answer. On the other hand, if I have mountains of data that proves my point, or if the problem is nuanced, you'll hear all of it.

I'm working on getting better at distilling that data into short, actionable points for people like VPs (because I'm now at the level where these people read what I write).

But if you were to assume that I'm not confident, based on my inability to boil it down, you'd be drawing the wrong conclusion. You should listen to me because I'm nearly always right, and when I'm wrong, I'm usually the first to identify that fact and provide a solution.

Also I am autistic, which certainly impacts my communication.

I wouldn't consider this rambling. There are many people who just talk to fill space. Their point was made in the first 10 seconds and then they just keep going. IMO, that's very different than going over all the data or explaining a nuance.

I'd argue its far better to say something like, "Good question. I need to think about that for a minute" rather than just sit there saying nothing at all after being asked something. I know a few engineers who do that and while their answer is normally fine, the awkward silence makes me and others question their social skills. Not their intelligence.

I know other engineers who do the same thing but say, "Let me think about that for a minute" and I've never heard of anyone questioning their ability to think quickly or social skills.

What you are suggesting is not wrong, its just a bit.. rude? awkward? Why impose that feeling on others when a clarifying sentence can prevent it?

Nobody paid attention to that interviewer, but they're probably not the only one in the panel to have that (wrong, in my opinion) reaction -- just the one to voice it.

When you are the answerer, yes, do what you suggest but try not to ramble.

The best impromptu speakers, who can carry debates and thrive on off the cuff arguments, in my experience were full of shit. When I critically look at what they said, it usually boiled down to: (a) if you're not with us, then you are against us (b) you just need to believe, work harder, and stop complaining.

In high school I got really into drama and improv, to succeed at improv AT ALL I had to effectively have to be in an altered mental state. When I am being quick witted my brain is literally functioning differently, there is no truth, no data, no thoughtfulness, it's stream of conscious ejected straight from my brain.

Mentally it's not unlike skiing a steep slope but the single internal directive isn't "oh shit, stay up" but "oh shit, entertain", it's not even an active thought per se, just an internal bent.

Fortunately my inner dialog and thought life isn't racist, evil or cruel, as no filter is no filter.

Before I learned that I had the capacity for this mental modality, I didn't even know it existed, I finally made the break through during "improv training" sessions and the "flight" response that caused me to stutter and choke just spontaneously disappeared, I'm not sure if everyone has the capacity.

I usually engage in slow thinking, in highly social situations where I'm "On", it still feels like flying down a ski slope, fun, very mentally "on" and damn scary.

Try to be prepared with a decision tree made in advance so you can answer the predictable stuff quickly. And you don't have to think of absolutely everything, but the act of planning will help you be more familiar with the options.

Talk out loud. Take the space and time you need to make a decision, and don't try to hide it.

People will use all kinds of tactics to get their way. Putting you under time pressure, bombarding you with a stream of precise facts and figures, making you feel slow and stupid and out of sync; these are all just ploys used by a hostile counterparty to influence your decision making.

You need to learn to recognize these tactics for what they are and develop counter measures.

Some "honorable" counter measures might be: demand to be sent the details in writing and promise a decision in a reasonable amount of time. Buy time by repeating back what they just said to you "to make sure you understand". Ask a lot of clarifying questions. Make your decision conditional ("I'll buy in if you can provide me with data set X that supports your direction"). etc.

For less honorable counter measures just think of "bad meeting" tropes. Appeal to authority ("we can't make a decision without person Y here, or without committee Z signing off"). Bike shedding. Circular reasoning. etc. You really shouldn't make a habit of any of these, but sometimes when you're ambushed by a bad faith actor you're gonna need to fight dirty.

Lots of good advice here so won’t repeat it. Only thing I have to add is, allow yourself some time to think in front of people. Be ok with a long pause and be assertive in making other people wait for your answer.

In a slightly competitive or confrontational situation, typically at work, I go as far as telling people: “hang on a second, let me finish.” Or “you’re bouncing around so much I don’t know what’s actually important” because often someone will keep pushing their agenda and/or cut me off and win social credit from onlookers. So I rebalance that power dynamic.

But a softer approach also works of course. “That’s interesting and I have lots to say about it, let me get back to you”

That's why I try to make space for both ends of the spectrum. One of the practices I've had great success with is a weekly update note, where my direct reports have the opportunity to write out their thoughts about how the week has gone and to raise any concerns. There have been too many times to count when a "slow thinker" has identified a problem via that channel that they didn't raise in our conversations, because they felt more comfortable being able to choose their words carefully in an async manner. If I hadn't made space for that kind of communication, I would have lost out on really smart ideas.

2. Bluster while I prep. A lot of quick thinkers are not actually quick thinkers. They are quick responders, using far more words to say just as much, with the filler works frontloaded to give them time. For example:

"Now, correct me if I am wrong, and I may be, and this is something to consider, what if we X?" buys you about 5 seconds of time to think. You can say those words in front of pretty much every argument.

3. Stop caring. Few quick decisions are actually needed. If my Product Owner is going to make me defend my approach, I just concede the argument and allow the other guy's approach, whether or not it has gaping security holes or will fail in prod. Haven't made a case for anything at work in two years and just make sure everyone whos who did make the screw up.

Steve Jobs had that mastered, like in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqPrUmVz-o

This one is on IQ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkKPsLxgpuY Pay attention to the stats on how IQ correlates to success (near the end).

This one is about becoming an expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eW6Eagr9XA

This one is about someone who just worked harder than everyone else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF8d72mA41M

I've always been a slow thinker, & always discounted quick-wittedness as a skill others had innately. Recently I've found myself being a bit more quick-witted & what's remarkable it's not something I "think" about (at least actively). It's something that comes out from a different place (subconscious?) & does so more & more with practice. E.g. take referential connections: I used to be amazed that people could connect things in conversation so quickly because my mind simply doesn't connect things that quickly - but I think it's more like the pre-connected reference bubbles up from deep in your subconscious pre-made; you don't think about the referential route.

I have a coworker that uses his quick talking ability to manipulate, accuse and scam his way through meetings and his daily work. He is management level (so am I) and it's impossible to have reasonable discussions for many reasons.

My solution:

I graciously communicate in a professional manner, work properly with this person as a normal work flow. I listen and give my feedback and this works really well to make the day go smoothly for both of us and anyone else in the area.

After any encounters with this person, I think about what happened, I make some notes about the events (date stamp it as well) and then let it sit in my mind until the next day at a minimum.

I have found that after doing this, I realized what really happened, (if I was tricked or manipulated or not) and then I do all of my responses in email.

I do not even try to do it verbally. In fact I have told this person and upper management, that I am not comfortable talking about events _because_ I am do not have quick responses to ward off the manipulations (I don't call it this to upper management though).

I state plainly that I do not want confrontation, and I just want to do my job, and I get too emotional and can sometimes communicate poorly verbally.

This is a reasonable statement, and I no longer have to replay my conversations when things go wrong, because I do it all in writing.

This has had the side benefit of causing this bully to back down, because he has relied on hiding behind clever wording and phrasing that I could not counter. And because I am being very open about my responses, he knows he would have to do the same if we wants to respond and his true motivations and intent would be revealed.

So I am now simply happier at work. I hope this helps some.

Learn to walk up and down an abstraction tree of your thoughts.

Quick for me in this context looks like high level conversation without details, so learn to keep things high level, and think in three branches maximum of the first level of that tree.

Also find common context, usually this is where I find conversations get lost, sometimes listening and gathering the other person context is way more important that stress yourself to be quick.

And just be honest, people appreciate that too.

So my "quick" thinking reply to you, are these three branches of a tree that could go wider and deeper but I would start the conversation like this.

- Think about abstraction levels rather than speed, one level deep and three branches wide.

- Listen to gather common context and fill your gaps.

- Be honest

Sadly one of the places where quick wittedness is most essential is face to face social interaction so at some point you just have to bite the bullet and do things you're worse at than others.

Because being good at things is not the be-all and end-all.

To find better between bad and great.

Nobody likes you more because you won the argument. "Yes, and..." is much better tool. Even when dealing with socio-paths because saying one thing and doing another is also useful.

What I mean is that what works for me is to realize that my deficit is social skills. The solutions are negotiation and forbearance, not violence.

Good luck.

That's still allowed outside of improv!

> my ability to socialize, memorise things and general mood has improved exponentially

But that does sound like a good outcome of your improv experience, definitely.

Using it instead of the the-problem-with-that-is I was raised on has improved my life as well.

There are quite a few things which are best kept as "fingertip knowledge", even with the assistance of GPT-4.

But then I realized something. Just like how martial artists rehearse their moves over and over again until it becomes second nature, I started rehearsing scenarios in my head. For instance, before a big presentation, I'd run through possible questions or objections I might face. It's like mentally preparing myself for battle, but without the black belt.

By recognizing when I'm slipping into slow-thinking mode, I can catch myself before I spiral into panic mode. It's all about staying cool, calm, and collected, even when the pressure's on.

Breaking tasks down has been a lifesaver too. Instead of tackling a decision head-on, I break it into bite-sized chunks. It's like eating a massive burger one bite at a time. Much more manageable, right?

Plus, I'm not afraid to lean on tools and resources. Whether it's jotting down notes or consulting with experts, these little helpers give me the confidence to tackle even the toughest decisions.

And hey, slow thinking doesn't mean I'm not sharp. I'm all about continuous learning and improvement. Whether it's doing brain teasers or engaging in a lively debate, I'm constantly flexing those mental muscles.

With a bit of rehearsal, mindfulness, and a trusty toolkit, you'll be navigating those fast-paced situations like a pro in no time.

> By recognizing when I'm slipping into slow-thinking mode, I can catch myself before I spiral into panic mode. It's all about staying cool, calm, and collected, even when the pressure's on.

Are you sure your experience here is from "slow-thinking"? Your description sounds more like stage-fright. A few years ago I started experiencing this myself, in executive presentations. Very debilitating, when I know the material and feel confident beforehand, but when the spotlight turns to me, my mind goes blank and I struggle to think.

First, I'm in a scenario where I'm bombarded with new information and asked to provide analysis, or I'm presented with a new problem and asked for a solution. When people ask questions about complex topics, they probably don't expect full, well organized answers immediately. Likely, they expect a conversation. Work the problem with them, just like you would alone, asking questions as necessary. Supplement your working memory by writing things down as you discuss them. People are happy to sit in silence for a minute while you work a problem or make notes, so don't be afraid of silence. This is simply how complex work is done.

Second, sometimes you're asked a question where you have all the information to answer it, but you need a minute to gather your thoughts before answering. In such a case, one can be tempted to say "I'll get back to you". A better approach, if you're certain that you can answer the question with a little more time, is to simply talk through your analysis. Your boss asks "What would happen if we did X instead of Y". You need a minute, but he's sitting there, waiting! That's fine, just talk it out! Say, "Hmm. I hadn't considered that. My first thought is Z, but there are a few things to consider. First...". Make notes as you go, if you're still talking about thing A and thing B pops into your head, make a quick note to remind yourself to return to it.

A great way to improve on this is to watch other people in meetings. Everyone gets put on the spot. You can learn a lot from seeing how other people handle it.

After I decided to really dive into DS&A and do some interview prep, I really focused on speed and I got so much faster.

We all have our anecdotes about someone that is 'quick on their feet' or 'slow to speak' etc but it wasn't until my daughter was diagnosed with memory and processing issues that it hit home how deeply this can affect people.

While doing a battery of tests, it was determined her 'intelligence' was in the 99th percentile, but her processing speed and working memory were in the 25th and 19th percentiles. That represents almost 5 standard deviations between what she understands and how easily she can process it!

Seeing how truly intelligent she is, but also appreciating the time it takes time for her to put the pieces together gives me more compassion and patience when I am working with people that process information differently than I do.

I'm also a slow thinker and here somethings that have helped me:

1. lean into your strengths. Like you said in your post where you asked for more time for him during tests. Real life is much more negotiable. Ask for time, Ask to think on this and get back, etc.

2. Like some of said, prep is helpful. Utilize your super power by taking a look at the material before. This can be intense like when I'm interviewing I really go crazy with prep but it can also be 5mins before the meeting, gathering your thoughts.

3. To get better at real time thinking, for me, is taking some lose notes during the meeting.

4. Sometimes you have to tune out the presenter. If all they are doing is reading out the slides, I've found ignoring the presenter, and digesting the content on my own is better. Then I come up with question to clarify my understanding, highlight a decision that needs made and my opinion, think about how this may effect other areas, etc.

As for arguments, make them try to convince you. Make them come to you. This is power. It's easier win an argument from a defensive stance. Picking apart their attacks is easier than you convincing them. They either see the error in their ways or you will see errors in your own and tell them you'll think about it. For this to work, you will need an open mind.

Also, if you have time, prepare as much as you can.

People that try to dominate in an argument instead of keeping a pro-social, open-mind only desire to boost their ego, not to truly learn. Avoid these people. Relieve yourself of the insecurity they wreak upon you.

Do you generally experience slow physiological and neural reactions? In other words is it a 'hardware' limitation?

My guess, in your case it may be more about specific contexts. Some topics/domains may not be your forte, so to speak, yet you could be familiar with them enough to get engaged.

So a reasonable choice could be not to engage into debates, instead take a role of a talk show host which encourages guests to talk and tell. It's a win-win case, the other side shines, you learn about the person and the topic.

Eventually you'd know which topics are "yours". It's not possible to know everything, yet it's very much possible to listen to anything (unless it's a preschooler asking for ice-cream non-stop).

Also, exercising your memory may be of great help in life in general. Fast recall saves you more time for processing the information.

if I had to analyze the way my brain works in communication (I have been diagnosed Autistic) it would be something like: checking my surroundings => filter check => no good => return to start until appropriate outcome/reaction is most likely to occur. I could make a flow chart about it. However when it's raw input, say a reaction to something dangerous I let my brain do it's thing avoiding hazardous situations (Environments, Automobile wrecks, etc...)

1) Prep/rehearsal

2) Delay ("I'll have that for you on [later]")

3) Snark ("If it doesn't matter let's just flip for it")

4) Silence, then spend the next 8 weeks mentally rehearsing and regretting and beating myself up

If it's literally just "quick wit", sometimes I have it, sometimes I don't, my wife always destroys me and I can only acknowledge greatness.

For myself, outside of prep/rehearsal, I generally only have "quick answers" if it's a situation where I either have a heuristic I trust ("Budget for that department needs to be 20% of top line revenue in most situations"), or a value that makes the decision for me ("We can 10x our profits if we poison these 17 children, should we do it?" has a quick "No").

In your case, if you're a slow, methodical thinker, you need to have a few people at hand who are quick thinkers and can make snap decisions and assessments when it's appropriate to do so.

I'm a quick, intuitive thinker, and I need people in my life who can slow me down and think through how my intuitions might be wrong.

Neither of these is better than the other. Both are needed. Love yourself. :)

If I am to give a presentation or am invited to a meeting I prepare by taking the position of my interlocutor. I write down their arguments. Then I write down my responses.

Then the day of the meeting I have prepared responses for what they’re going to say.

When I am caught with an argument I hadn’t thought of I pause first. Then I repeat what they said in my own words. And then I use implication to work towards my position.

It’s a lot of rehearsal. Like martial arts. The purpose of practice is to relieve the mind when the time comes to act.

I’m not afraid to take a moment to consider what is said before responding. Some people who are quick witted or like to talk before they think are disarmed by this. But it can be useful… just try to avoid over-using it or people may get impatient with you.

For example, in high-pressure situations, such as when the infra is falling down, you might not be the one coming up with immediate mitigations, but you may be starting a reasoned, calm root-cause analysis that is just as important, if not with the same urgency, as mitigations. If you are also methodical in your troubleshooting, you are providing an alternate path to finding the issue that is different from with a more intuitive approach.

A colleague willing to let you take the time to hear you out helps out a lot.

The benefits are obvious to me: while I may have presented myself better in the past, I was prioritizing my presentation over being right, and eventually those snappy comments would come back to bite me. Now my life is much more exciting and varied. I find myself learning a lot more and being a lot more excited about the world.

Could that be at the root of your problem? Don't labor over whether what you say is right or not. Just put it out there, and you will be right almost all the time. Everyone understands that quick-thinking produces less accurate results. Be less worried about being wrong. You can always have a slow think afterwards and change your mind.

Also a valid response to being asked to make a decision can be "I'll think about it and get back to you" (but always make sure you do get back to them about it)

The best advice I've got for most arguments is to not bother. If you've reached the point of arguing then egos are involved and people won't back down even if they realize that they're wrong.

This whole thing of asking people technical questions in interviews is IMHO just stupid. In an interview if you want to know if someone is technically good, have them ask you questions and test your knowledge. Or give them a problem without an easy answer. Why and when would you prefer to use Rust vs JavaScript. Why don't people use 'C' anymore?

My advice is: if you find yourself in a "who knows the answer" environment to run like crazy. Corporations use goofy signals. I worked long ago at significant DB company that used the number of hours you worked as a signal for how good you were. Work 9 hours = bad, Work 15 = good. Then they went out of business because it turns out that no one got anything done.

I've been thinking about Cargo Cultism quite a bit. Agile used to be an effective way to do things. Now not so much. Did the technique change? No. What happened is that it because the "right answer". People are going through the motions for something they do not understand. Just silliness.

Do a start up, consult, anything. If you can think well you have lots of options, but will have to work for them.

As others have mentioned "pre-thinking" or preparation will be the solution whenever possible.

If you suspect a language processing issue, get it confirmed so that you can plan around it.

To work around this, I rely more on social skills, a positive attitude, pre-canned responses, and deferral of judgement on technical approaches until I've had time to consider them. (Fortunately my social brain hasn't aged as poorly as my nerd brain)

But this whole topic raises an important question: is there any way to check whether someone is a slow thinker, e.g. when interviewing people for work? It would be great if one could easily determine if someone doesn't have the required knowledge or is simply slow to formulate the answers.

I am not very good at chess. If I need to make a decision on a move, I will think slowly and deeply. In the end, I often make a move because I feel I used up too much time, and not because I think it is a good move.

There are some domains where I am very experienced. When I listen to someone's question, many possible solutions come to mind. As the person continues to explain the situation, some of the solutions are eliminated as they don't apply. When the person finished speaking, I have either a possible solution for their problem (assuming they provided adequate context) or some followup questions. In either case, I am able to offer a quick response or followup question, and may come across as quick-witted.

I don't think I am quick witted. I am able to listen and process at the same time. I have a considerable library in my head on some subject, and can navigate it while someone is speaking.

This varies from subject to subject, and largely depends on the complexity of the question or decision. The more I know about something, and the simpler the situation, the quicker comes a response. To someone who has less experience, this may seem like a quick wit.

That said, I don't think it's set in stone. As someone quick on their feet, I can tell you that it feels like flow state. I don't think it's innate, so with practice you can become just like the other jokesters at work. Also try to loosen up. Anxiety is anathema to a quick wit.

When I notice smart people appear to be slow thinkers, it's actually still obvious that they're fully engaged but that they have recessed themselves a bit in their minds. They are processing everything but for some reason feel there is a cost to start speaking so they don't jump the gun. It's not a terrible quality. So if you're a solid thinker people will still see it, don't worry about appearing like a midwit if you're not. Otherwise your anxiety will eat you up.

Asking questions. It gives me more time to think and more information with which to come to a conclusion. I think a lot of what is sometimes called slowness is really analysis paralysis. Not caused by lack of thinking, any more than gridlock is caused by lack of cars. As you know, the person who makes confident, knee-jerk decisions looks highly competent, but usually isn't.

I’ve learned to tone that down by not responding immediately with an answer. My immediate response is almost always a set of considerations, and then I walk through my internal thought process with whoever I’m answering.

This does a few things, it respects the other person who you are talking to, as they have likely thought about it too and for longer, so might have some deeper insight. Secondly it prevents you from saying one thing out of nowhere and backtracking, preventing confusion/frustration where you contradict yourself. People have a lot more confidence in the person who is very clear and has fewer instances of jumping from one solution to a different one.

I would say change nothing but do learn to express your inner monologue clearly. I often do that by making notes as one would in debate (on paper or mentally).

I hope this is something I can train away though, because thinking slow in-front of others is kinda embarrassing.

Most of the time, people who are 'quick-witted' have either come across the situation before and recalled a good response (think chess players memorizing good opening or endgame moves), or that they are actually really good at analyzing and solving a particular type of problem really well (think prodigies that have an abundance of natural talent).

This is something that you can practice by listening to what other people say and analyzing the situation rather than jumping in with a comment of your own.

In time, you'll be the one jumping in with the 'quick-witted' comment.

https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metr...

For the times in life when someone wants a quick decision, instead learn a few canned and polished responses that give you a few minutes to decide how you want to answer.

Just because someone wants a quick decision doesn’t mean they deserve more than a quick response.

This has made me more confident in my quiet style. It’s very helpful to know in your gut that you are respected and don’t need to hurry to be the first person to say something. You have nothing to prove. When you wait and only say something that truly advances the discussion, you become mysteriously wise.

“In this world … you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzOIhLJ1C-Y

- stop thinking of yourself as slow thinker/fast thinker

- decide if you want to be able to think fast or not and either avoid situations where you have to think fast or seek such situations to practice and get better

My compensation is to know the subject inside and out. When I am absolutely aligned with the data being discussed, I can absolutely spar with the best of them.

Downside is any context-based subject, such as sarcasm or politics or emotional/fact-free arguments. There is no way to master those, so my slow thinking is a permanent nerf.

Addendum: I might have taken a while to think through a problem, but I am quick-witted in arguing hahaha!

1. I don't know, 2. It depends, 3. I'll get back to you.

If people don't accept that, I'll follow with some variation of "Do you want me to guess or do you want me to lie? Either way, I'd be feeding you bullshit, and you deserve better than that. Give me a little bit of time to collect my thoughts."

Preparedness is not the solution for many unique and many times life changing situations, where we do not have time to think, but have to make decision very quickly. And I have always failed at that, and created misunderstandings, pain.

And having ADHD, slow processing brain, and some hearing loss, I have not seen any solution that would help me.

Outside work, people remember/invite people who are empathetic and/or fun to be around, not those who win arguments. In fact argument winners tend to annoy people more.

There are very few high-stakes situations where quick thinking is crucial. What most people mistake for quick thinking (say averting a mishap during airplane landing) is trained muscle memory, which comes from long prep.

1) It may be that you aren't a slow thinker but a bad translator.

2) I prepare 70% of a conversation in my head (I may never use it).

3) My first drafts are awful. Second and third can be worse. The 30% is the bit I'm less likely to ruin on delivery.

4) I used early social media to learn to trim multiple paragraphs down to sentence. I'm still learning it.

5) I'm a slow learn. This took years.

Quit worrying about being quick-witted. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

If you have a culture of async communication, that helps.

In times when I haven’t appeared like this, I haven’t thought about the problem much. L

I also cultivate a measure of unpredictability in myself to slow other people down by defying their assumptions.

"You know what - my first answer is rarely my best one. Can I mull it over and get back to you by [end of day/tomorrow morning/next Monday]?"

This is for questions in meetings. Actual arguments might be harder.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence

Also, I try to never fire off a reply to an email without 1. writing a first draft, 2. thinking about something else, then 3. revising my draft.

It is trainable because I was HORRIBLE at it, and now I can say I'm average/good, and I deliberately practiced.

Also, if you are in management, you must exercise this more. Sometimes, you must make decisions quickly, and postponing them has consequences. One example that comes to mind is if a report misbehaves, you can't just let it go, you need to let them know about it (in private) quickly.

One tip that helps is to think strategically: what are the first 3 steps? Or the most important 3 steps you could think of?

Of course, your answer will have plenty of holes, but a good enough answer is typically good enough for those situations.

You can train this daily with your other or family; talk with them, and instead of saying what is comfortable (the next token in your brain LLM), you try to say something better or more enjoyable.

That will prompt you to think fast about a new solution.

Like with blitz chess, if you want to improve at it, you need to play more using the fundamentals you know from the "slower" chess, which is what you already do now. It isn't as complex as you think, just more practice practice.

Then again all you can do is practice.

when it comes to human interactions, you don't really need to respond. most of that is pride or lack of options.

for example, in interpersonal relationships, its a learned trait to not respond reactively

in another example if you're overemployed, you don't need to quickly fight for relevance in your job from decisions that could theoretically seem like threats to your division or employment to just you, because you already secretly have another job

Through poor work/life balance. Working overtime to solve tasks that I can't solve during the regular hours.

Logic, fallacies, philosophy, and science for arguments

Fundamental algorithms and structures for code

Common joke/meme formats and questions for social skills

I have complete faith in Joe Biden’s ability to make sound decisions through a slow and deliberate process. That’s what the presidency requires.

I don’t hold much faith in his ability to compete on the campaign trail, because all people care about is fast thinking in conversation and debate, and he’s quickly losing that ability.

I see a pretty clear parallel to myself. I’m able to perform objectively well at work, but I’m not great in fast paced conversations, and unfortunately, interviews.

I just avoid people and organizations that doesn't understand the value of deep vs quick thinking.

1. Some decisions are better made than delayed. Most choices are reversible. So get over those being be important/relevant.

2. Everything else _should_ be thought through. Push for it. If that's not possible then you have to live with the consequences. These are most often sales traps though, see e.g. "scarcity" in "Influence: The psychology of persuasion" which covers deadlines. If you fail for these then please read the book or listen to the audio book.

3. Winning an argument is not just about thinking about arguments. See "The art of being right" for a set of arguing tactics that will make you look like you are dumb.

4. Fast good action is often a matter of turning it into a routine. That's what you do for incidents (gamedays), fire drills etc. If it matters then better be prepared!

But on top of everything.... I've been doing on-call for years. I can tell you that bad decisions under time pressure and emotional stress are often bad and far from optimal. It's ok. It's human.

The thing that makes me a bit uneasy is that it looks like you are stressing yourself on top of everything. You can get professional help for that too.

delay tactics: take sip of water, ask a clarifying question

frame inversion: go on offense, reflect the attention to them- study the dialogue in super hero movies between the hero and villain