I wrote this a while back but never posted it.
One benefit from having people you mutually established trust with, is learning from weakness. You get to see their limitations and mentally ask yourself “Wait, do I also have this limitation? How does their skill gap compare to mine? Even if I am better than them, are we both still below average?” and similarly, if you allow your friend to be candid with you about what they think your weaknesses are, you can listen to those. You then think “Well, do I agree or disagree with their view? If I agree, how would I rate my own limitation, and then maybe theirs? If I disagree, am I in denial or can I justify my reasoning? Regardless, how could I improve this? Is it possible to improve? Have I noticed other people improving this limitation and does it seem very difficult to do?”
This is a lot of mental exercising but a little exercise consistently is the important part. Recent situation which inspired me to formalize this thinking.
Talking with a close friend who I trust and respect. We have talked about our relative strengths and weaknesses. I’m weak at X and I consult them. They are weak at Y and they consult me.
Two items said individual had problems and potential areas for improvement. Being overwhelmed with multiple decisions related to one timely topic in their life. And indexing to a prior experience which took much less input to get to the same output.
What I am thinking: say I apply to college and I prepare a little amount (key: less than average) and I get into a good college. I have a sibling who is younger than me by a few years. They prepare more than average and get into a worse college. Assume all personal qualifications/all else equal. Their thought: he prepared less (less input), got into a better school (greater output)! That isn’t fair.
My takeaway:
This individual the first go-around of this task, had a great outcome. Little time spent, large positive output. Now on the second go-around, it requires more time than before, and is understandably more overwhelming.
Second takeaway: people keep talking about best traits in someone who is successful. One trait that is mentioned (but perhaps not as much as I have haerd) is ability to keep a lot of complex things running in one’s head at once. Able to just think clearly about multpile items, simultaneously, and keep it all organized. Usually a funciton of experience, preparation, and thoughtfulness, above just raw horsepower.
Last item: You may notice that in my friend’s example, I didn’t say where his weakness in being overwhelmed or indexes lies on the spectrum. You may (or may not) be surprised to hear that in some subjects, he probably has the ability to think about a complex problem and multiple facets at like 85-90th percentile. WAY better than average. In this subject, maybe he is like 40th, or 60th percentile in thinking through this problem. But when the complexity increases sharply (takes more input), one can get overwhelmed, but if the situation is like “It is overwheleming for anyone below 60th percentile, and not for anyone above”, you can still be above average, and be overwhelmed.