FRI
Something happened today.
I realized different kinds of thinking do not have to defeat each other.
D1 and D2 started as a joke. Chad, Darryl and Darryl 2. A little nod to Newhart. Then the joke became useful.
D1 is the one who can take a simple question and somehow discover six hidden assumptions, three edge cases and a relationship to bridge engineering.
D2 looks at the same thing and says, Why don’t you just put the button there?
Both can be infuriating.
Both can be exactly right.
I recognized something in that because my own brain contains versions of both. I can overthink. I can also suddenly cut through a mess with a sentence so simple I wonder why I spent an hour getting there.
The temptation is to decide which thinking style is superior.
There is our old courtroom again.
D1 is better because precision matters.
D2 is better because simplicity matters.
Yes.
Both.
Precision without simplicity can build a cathedral around a doorknob.
Simplicity without precision can remove the screws holding the doorknob on.
The interesting thing is what happens when they irritate each other productively.
That became another way of seeing collaboration. A good teammate is not necessarily somebody who thinks like you. Sometimes the value is that they make your blind spot impossible to ignore.
D2 says, I do not understand this.
D1 explains.
D2 says, No, I still do not understand it.
D1 is forced to discover whether the complexity is real or self-inflicted.
Then D1 points out the edge case D2 happily drove over at full speed.
Neither wins.
The thing gets better.
I like that model for people too.
Difference does not automatically mean incompatibility.
Sometimes difference is the machinery of correction.
