Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by arethuza 1920 days ago
Pretty sure I have met people who tended to do "Act, Look, Think, Decide" in that order!

i.e. Do something daft, look at what they had done, think about the consequences and decide whether to admit to the mistake ;-)

2 comments

It's the same when run as a loop though, so it's just a difference in opinion about where the loop started.

...), (Act, Look, Think, Decide, (Act, Look, Think, Decide), (Act, Look, ...

..., Act), (Look, Think, Decide, Act), (Look, Think, Decide, Act), (Look, ...

As long as you keep the "act" small in scale (and you continue to loop through the steps), this is probably the best approach in most circumstances. If for no other reason than is break you out of the initial tendency many people have to freeze when confronted with crisis.
I'm sure I've been told by someone who had been trained as an officer in the British army that they were very much trained to have a "Bias for Action" - i.e. the worst thing you could in most situations would be to get caught in their version of "analysis paralysis". Of course, he told me this with impeccable self deprecating humour (presumably also part of their training) - so difficult to tell how serious he was being.
Yeah, my take also comes from prior training (as a firefighter/paramedic). Start moving towards/away from the problem (which direction depends on your own personal defaults and risk tolerance). You don't need to figure everything out before you start moving.
I heard the same from an ebola containment expert. Can't locate the interview now but it felt borne from hard-earned experience.