Ask HN: Slow thinkers, how do you compensate for your lack of quick-wittedness?

One of the great secrets of jazz improvisation is to learn how not to self-edit. When improvising, you don't have the time to think about what whether you're doing is good or not. You just have to play. In context, over the fretboard, while playing live music, self-editing doesn't bring much extra value.

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.

I think try and come up with coping skills/phrases to say.

"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.

I'm not sure I'm a slow thinker, but I often over think which causes me to delay output. I also struggle with word recall which compounds my issues with real-time communication. This is something I tried to seek some advice on the other day without much luck, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39512837

Regardless of whether I'm a slow thinker or not though, we have the exact same problem in that my ability to answer questions on the spot is probably comparable to someone with an IQ in the 80-90 range, while my actual IQ is likely somewhere around 130.

The only thing that I can realistically do is just reject to answer certain questions on the spot. Normally I'll say something like, "I'm sorry, I'd need to think about that a bit and get back to you", but obviously whether or not this is appropriate will depend on the context – you can't say this in an interview, for example.

I'm also autistic and something I've learnt in life is that when you have such divergent abilities really have no option but to play to your strengths. There are always things you can do to improve where your ability is lacking, but realistically you're not going to be able to completely alter the way your mind works. The better strategy is just to appreciate the ways you excel and try your best to use your strengths to add value to the situations you find yourself in.

So for me I think my ability to go away and reflect on problems is excellent, so if this is an option for me that's what I'll try to do. So maybe your strength just isn't in real-time debates? Maybe you're better at making your arguments via blog posts, or if this is at work perhaps you're good at going away, thinking about something and then writing up a proposal with your reasoning.

The other way this effects me which I'll briefly comment on is my ability to joke and have small talk. Because I'm not very witty and I'm autistic I can naturally come off as a bit cold and detached in conversations. I deal with this by trying to overcompensate for my natural coldness by smiling and showing appreciation for people so they know I'm not cold because I don't like them, I'm just a bit socially awkward. I don't know if you have the same problem, but this helps me a ton at work. I think people who lack social wit often fall into trap of thinking that they can't be likeable people, but really the reason they're not likeable is because they make people feel uncomfortable around them. In my experience people kinda like awkward people when they're friendly and positive to be around. There's lots of examples of lovable awkward characters in popular media that might come to mind and be good models to try to replicate in your own interactions.

Note: Some of us spend way to much time "playing chess" with problems, particularly people, and many times, the quick responses I have are because of that. It doesn't mean I'm set in my ways or making irrational choices, but like someone studying a chess position, sometimes all you're waiting for is the next move.

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.

There are a lot of other good answers here. My 2c:

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.