Re: 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.

Comment on Re: The Law of Inconsistent Assumptions

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.	[reply]
Re^3: The Law of Inconsistent Assumptions by DrHyde (Prior) on Oct 20, 2004 at 09:01 UTC
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.	[reply]