[aarghh]

The best learnt behavior I have is to slow down. In practice that means using phrases like "Let me think about that for a second", and maybe looking at or writing notes. As an interviewer, if anyone actually took a minute to think about what I had just asked them, I would consider that a huge positive signal.

[billti]

Someone posted this Steve Jobs response the other day that demonstrates this well. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqPrUmVz-o) . Even in front of an audience that size, there is no rush to answer. He takes quite a while to consider a response first.

That said, he is still amazing at how he can have (apparently) a long narrative in mind as he starts to answer. I work with an architect who I can spring a complex question on, and he'll start answering with something like, "There are four things I would...", and I'm thinking "Damn! You already thought through the entire response in enough detail to count the bullet points!". I'm not sure if that is just "practice" or some people's minds just work differently.

[Swizec]

> "There are four things I would...", and I'm thinking "Damn! You already thought through the entire response in enough detail to count the bullet points!"

As someone in a similar role – it's all cheating. They've seen a version of your problem so many times it doesn't feel new to them. While you were talking, the architect was walking down a decision tree of possible problem patterns. Every new clue you provided eliminated part of the tree until the only thing that was left were 4 options that you can eliminate or confirm by asking followup questions or doing followup investigation.

Once identified, you use the off-the-shelf solution in your brain. Slightly tweaked for the current problem.

That's what people buy when they hire for experience.

[al_borland]

>he'll start answering with something like, "There are four things I would..."

I've been know to start off replies like that. It's usually that the question is really long winded, so as they say it the issues start jumping out. Then you just kind of keep track of the count until they're done talking and give some space to answer. The hardest part is remembering all the points. If I was smarter I'd jot down a word or two to jog my memory.

Generally these are situations where I know a system really well and the other person does not. So they are saying something like, "why don't we try X", and I either already tried X and just need to list off all the ways in which it failed, or I thought about trying X before, but didn't because of all the ways I thought about it failing. Other times all the issues just seem really obvious, to the point that I can't believe they are talking without hearing the pitfalls.

I may have been the one to post that the other day, I know I left that video in a comment. Another Jobs story on this topic... I saw an article recently with someone talking about how to debate/argue with Jobs. Sadly I can't remember who it was, some other CEO I think. He would go into meet with Jobs and bring up and issue and Jobs would do what you mentioned and give 5 reasons why his idea sucked. Because Jobs' mind worked so much faster than his (his words), he just had to take it and leave. He'd spend the next week thinking about it and formulating his reply. He walk in again and Jobs would respond back instantly. The guy would leave and take another week to come up with his reply... it would go back and forth like this. Eventually Jobs would either finally get his point and say, "oh, you're right", or he'd give up and just tell him to do whatever.

[marginalia_nu]

Yeah, when you're nervous you kinda feel like you need to have an answer immediately and deliver it quickly, but you'd be surprised not only how long you're allowed to pause, but how slow you're allowed to talk.