My own notes on listening to other people's ideas

I want to hear it as undistorted as possible.

Even if I receive written materials in advance, there is a rather high probability of the occurrence of cases of "not being able to express my feelings well in writing," so my side should not read them and "think I understand" them.

The image of a world in the speaker's mind that cannot be directly observed by the listener, which is explored while being careful not to destroy it.

What made you want to do this project?"

Equivalent to "Why do it?"

I ask "why" because some people may feel accused if I ask "why," or they may misunderstand that I expect them to answer in a well-mannered way about social issues, etc., so I ask "how it started.

If the social issue still comes up, ask, "What made you think we should solve that social problem?" and dig deeper until personal experiences come up.

If it seems to come down to "because an adult told me so," I'm not sure he has much of a motive.

Future-focused version of "Why do it?"

[False socially accepted belief that not being able to answer questions quickly is stupid and evil

This is also the case when the answer is "social problems will be solved", in which case the question is "What would you like to see happen if those social problems were solved? What would you be happy about if that social problem were solved? In such cases, we delve into the question until it comes down to the individual's desire, such as "What would you like to see happen if that social problem were solved?

What's the next step toward that goal?"

Depending on the situation, you may want to ask first, "How far have we gotten with the current situation?".

Surprisingly, there are cases where people say, "If the prototype is that good, why don't you just appeal it?

There is a big difference between just thinking about it and taking the first step.

Whether to delve into the technical details

vexing problem

However, in general, there are not many people who can give a verbal answer to a technical problem without over- or under- giving the information necessary to solve it, so I think it is better not to try to solve a technical problem on the spot.

In particular, the listener feels that he or she has to give advice because he or she is the senior member of the group, and gives off-the-mark advice without listening carefully to the speaker. This is not good.

It is fine until the listener thinks, "I see," when something he or she did not expect is pointed out, but if he or she thinks, "If I listen to this knowledgeable person and follow what he or she says, it must work," he or she will be deprived of the opportunity to try it out for himself or herself.

Failure is an opportunity to learn, so from an educational perspective, it is not a good idea to preemptively remove any stumbling blocks. On the other hand, from the perspective of the project manager, who has a limited time to complete the project successfully, anything that will hinder the project should be removed. This is a very vexing question, and I don't have the answer either.

If you have a plan that is unlikely to be finished within the time frame

Since "it's not going to be finished within the time frame" is an interpretation, it's a bad move to say "that's not going to be finished, so you'll have to reconsider."

Split up the plan, bring the alpha release early, and trust the speaker's judgment 100% as to how soon they think they can do that release. Whether or not it will be as good as it sounds will be proven by the reality that follows.

When the choice of elemental technology is unorthodox in any way.

Interpretation of "Muscle Evil" as well.

Before you say, "It's bad," you should ask yourself, "Why do I think it's bad?

If a circular reference is occurring

"For A, you need B. For B, you need A."

We have to make them aware of the composition first.

2017-05-28

---