Satyaprakash Joshii

Junilu Lacar wrote:
You: "Ok, this what I understood... explain in your own words what you think the other person said"

Have tried to implement this and it is definitely effective.

One way I initially tried is to listen to what the other person said and explain in my own words.

Later I felt a better way is to while listening write some rough points on a notebook using pen about what other person said and then use those short handwritten notes to explain in own words what he said.

Now, I felt that an even better way is to keep one small notepad open on your laptop, and type some very short notes while the other person is speaking, and then use it to explain in own words what he said.

Between the second the third approach the difference I have seen is that the third approach enables a more cleaner thought process than the second in my case.

Although the post was for software development, for me the advice given in this forum is useful in everyday life too.

I was having this bad habbit of hearing the other person and not confirming my understanding then and there itself (in case of something which I do not understand ), and used to think I will analyse this later on in my sweet time and understand. This is not limited to office but life too.I realized you can't be in a fully asynhronous communication mode in life.

Basically, I became from asynchronous to synchrous in life after this thread. I am very thankful to Junilu and others for helping me change my habbit.

I have started implementing it from today.

When in the adhoc meeting it was said to do this and that and this way and that way, I said my understanding is this (based on what I could remember from what was told to me by him few seconds back). After this also I note this understanding as I myself may forget.

For this I am having to push myself to understand/clarify synchronously (then and there itself ) instead of asynchronous (later taking sweet time to analyze and understand ).

Also, I realized that procastination is one of my bad habbits. I need to push myself to analyse/clarify things now itself.

Junilu Lacar wrote: Sometimes to avoid looking stupid, you have to risk being honest and less than perfect (because none of us are perfect, of course).

Yes. That's true.

Les Morgan wrote:
Don't be afraid to ask questions if you miss something.

Yes, that's the right thing to do. But, sometimes the questions come to mind late.

Also, I need to understand that communication is a lot synchronous then just being asynchronous.

The reasons I feel are multiple and I need to change these :

1) Instead of feeling embarassement that I did not understand immediately what was just said, I like to analyse offline by taking my sweet time to think and then often end up understanding it.

But I need to change this.

2) Analyzing by taking my sweet time later on is sometimes easier than immediately being able to understand.

I need to start putting effort in understanding things then and there itself and asking questions immediately.

3) During the meeting sometimes the attention goes away.

I need to start being always attentive.

4) Also sometimes I feel lazy to analyse and understand then and there itself and delay it.

I need to push myself to understand things then and there itself instead of delaying it.

I will put effort and change my mindset.

Junilu Lacar wrote:You: Thanks again for your input. This was a lot to take in so I might have to get your input again on other details. Can I ping you once I've fully digested and analyzed the implications of this new information? I want to make sure I understand this correctly.

This one seems the most important step for me. I will focus and start doing this.

Junilu Lacar wrote:[ There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with asking the other person to check your understanding. Even if you let them talk it all through first, then ask them to listen to what you are taking away, it's still better than looking like you got everything and then it turns out you didn't because you missed something or misunderstood it and that shows up in the work that you did. You look far more inattentive or stupid when that happens.

That is absolutely correct.I will try and follow this.

Just that one problem is that mostly it takes me few minutes of time to analyse and build some understanding (out of what someone explains) which I can use to confirm with the other person.

During the meeting building some understanding and telling it to the other person that this is my understanding , this has to be reasonably quick (because the other person would not pause for 5 minutes to let me think analyse and build some understanding then tell my understanding to him to confirm)

Junilu Lacar wrote: Don't be afraid to ask for feedback in the moment!

Sometimes, what happens is when something is explained during a meeting and is very simple , I understand it at the moment itself.

Often, what happens is when something is explained during a meeting and it not very simple, it requires me more time to rethink and analyze to understand it.I do happen to understand it but later on when I can give it more time then doing it quickly during the meeting itself.

E.g one can't say during the meeting that what you explained now let me think and analyze for 5-10 minutes meanwhile you pause.

That's what is frequently happening. I can be more attentive, ask more questions to understand, confirm my understanding but often things for me take 5-10 minute of analysis to understand than at the moment itself.

Junilu Lacar wrote:
Do you see how it helps keep you more focused?

Yes. Maintaning single level of abstraction is simpler and the right approach. Switching level of abstractions makes it difficult to understand.

If during such meetings, at rapid pace one understands and remembers then one may not even have to write. I write sometimes thinking that I can understand this after analyzing slowly later on, and not at pace of the meeting , so write down now and analyze later slowly.

Junilu Lacar wrote:
Essentially, getting a single level of abstraction makes the code focused on intent rather than implementation. With respect to the conversations you're having with an SME, you want to make sure you're clear on intent first (high-level summary and functional levels) before delving into subtask details (the fish-eye view). This is how you can iteratively refine your understanding of the work.

Is the disadvantage of not maintaining single level of abstraction in coding or communication that it would lead to confusions ?

Junilu Lacar wrote:The "someone" who explains the details of the complex work is a subject matter expert (SME) and the listener taking notes is a developer, .

I am talking about the adhoc meeting usually between developer and his team leader.

Junilu Lacar wrote:
Just as we write code and try to keep methods at a single level of abstraction, you would also want to follow a similar principle for your conversations with SMEs.

What does keeping methods at single level of abstraction mean ?

Junilu Lacar wrote:can't just be written down as a procedure to be followed. If it could be written down as a procedure to follow, then why have a meeting about it?

Procedure can be written down but on high level. It would not have some specific detail required during implementation.

I am talking more about adhoc one to one meetings.E.g just pinging on chat and calling for a random discussion on work on skype  or adding third person dynamically in the meeting for few minutes for some discussion , than the meetings fixed in advance.