[Frannky]

One big difference I see in how minds work is their ability to model. A few people I know focus on end-to-end model thinking — trying to maximize against some functions.

The rest of them seem to avoid thinking outside a small info bubble/closed system, not sure why, but it looks like it creates anxiety when they start feeding too much info. Instead of trying to extract abstractions that make it possible to model the complexity and fuzz the non-important parts.

The same people, when they come up with a product implementation idea, avoid thinking about all the things required to be in place for the product to actually satisfy some real need/want. The product ends up detached from user need. The tech doesn't work.

And it doesn't matter if they can code or if Claude can work, because the directions required to define what needs to be there are not present.

I realized I need to take the thinking of these people as their ideas and advice — as inputs that need to be sanitized. The easy way I found is to remodel why they think the way they think — it's like having a safe VM running their code (thinking) through my computer (my brain).

These same people, usually years later, realize you were telling them things they were not able to comprehend at the time, but they realized those things were so important and would have saved them from suffering so much. They start to treat your voice with reverence instead of thinking through with their own minds and stress-testing against reality.

I would love to read some research about this and how to take advantage of it, or at least avoid the toxic influence such minds can have against one's own well-being and success.

[zephen]

When I was reasonably experienced, and about 6 months into a new job, one of my co-workers, Fred, had been there for a very long time.

Fred was very knowledgeable, and Fred could think. But Fred had deeply held preconceived notions that interfered with the utility of his thoughts.

Fred also had something else, though -- he could set aside those deeply preconceived notions. Not for himself, mind you, but for someone else.

I could, and did on a very regular basis, go to Fred and say "Fred! Assume X, Y, and Z. What happens if A and B?" Now even though Fred was completely sure that I was wrong about at least Y and Z, he could set aside those prejudices, and (correctly!) reason through what would happen.

Fred reminds me of the people you describe, except that instead of having Fred's code running through my brain, I was able to insert my code into Fred's brain.

[rafterydj]

There has to be some language for what you're describing, because I've experienced similar perceptions of people. I've been on both sides of the "you don't actually understand what is being said until years later" discussions as well.

One thing I'd posit is that it might not be the people, but rather an ability or skill people can improve. It takes difficulty and focus and time, but it can be honed. I know this to be true; otherwise I would not be able to understand that which I dismissed years ago!

The problem with this, if it is an active ability rather than a person's inherent traits, is that it becomes impossible to recognize by any identifiable markers. I've often found that some of the most intelligent and "look at the problem from all angles" kind of minds often have very glaring blind spots (look no further than political subjects, for example). These blind spots manifest even in the most generally intelligent thinkers, that's what makes people human after all. So it can be said that good thinking is a very delicate thing, and it can be difficult to recognize against noise no matter who is speaking or what they are discussing.