Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re: The Law of Inconsistent Assumptions

by hardburn (Abbot)
on Oct 19, 2004 at 15:38 UTC ( [id://400562]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to The Law of Inconsistent Assumptions

In one of my writing courses, I heard an excelent idea of how to combat this tendency. After the other person is done speaking, you give your own interpretation of what they said. The other person will then either correct you (and then repeat the process), or you go on with your own point. It might make for a very redundant means to communicate, but it's more robust as a direct result.

"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The Law of Inconsistent Assumptions
by pg (Canon) on Oct 19, 2004 at 17:36 UTC

    This is actually what I have been doing in my real programming life, and it has been proved to be very efficient.

    When I discuss with one person, or a group of people, for each key point, I always rephrase what I heard (obviously I interpreted it already), and ask the person to confirm.

    At the end of discussion, I will again recap all what I got in my own words, and ask everybody in the room to agree or disagree.

    By doing this, you largely reduce the chance of misunderstanding.

      I even go a little further. Often when I get a written spec from a client, I rewrite it in my own words, and get them to sign off on it. It catches some quite nasty errors in interpretation.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://400562]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2024-03-28 20:49 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found