I guess I see 'Speed as a Habit' and take the article as culture setting and a negative. It seems like you see the article as a way to avoid poor decision making and planning habits and a positive. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
"not so fast" is generally a nice way of telling someone to stop and consider what they are doing because they are about to do something unwise. I do believe you are correct to take the headline as negative.
Yeah, I definitely agree that a popular reason for adoption was "go faster", which was poisonous to the actual attempt.
Honestly, I think you eventually can get substantial speed gains. But you mostly get them by cutting out waste. Doing that takes a fair bit of time and work. And not just work, but commitment to personal and cultural change. People don't do that under strong time pressure; instead they are inclined to revert to previous behavior.
Self-selection bias. Clearly those who love the saying are predisposed to move fast. But they move so fast they haven't had a chance to understand the saying!
Delivering something after it is needed is useless. Chronically delivering things the day after requirements change due to the world turning, is uselees.
Musicians and other technical performers practice both slow&carefully and quickly, so that over time they can be more correct and more quick (as quick as the task can appreciate)
> That doesn’t mean be sloppy. But it does mean, push yourself to go faster than you think is healthy. That’s because the task will come to cost less in your mind; it’ll have a lower activation energy. So you’ll do it more. And as you do it more (as long as you’re doing it deliberately), you’ll get better. Eventually you’ll be both fast and good.
Perhaps there is something to be gained by being forced to slow down anyways. Speed for the sake of speed isn't always the highest priority. Certainly there are contexts where "keeping up" is a priority, but not always.
> If you had the choice understand the concept 10 times slower but in the end would come up with twice the amount of connections, would you consider it as something valuable?
But then they aren't just thinking slower, they are doing more processing. It isn't just "slow vs fast', it is "more processing vs less processing". Similarly if two people eat hamburgers as fast, but one of them eat twice as many hamburgers and therefore takes twice the time, it doesn't make him a "slow eater" it just means he eats a lot per meal.
Well, my point is that it's a little silly to decide that "slow" is always better than "fast." Or vice versa. You wind up with platitudes that are vague to the point of absurdity. Like: "Slow is usually better."
Of course you shouldn't universally prioritize speed above all else. That'd be dumb.
You shouldn't rush through something that should be done with careful deliberation. You also shouldn't linger on something when time is of the essence.
Of course people should 'move fast', unless of course they should actually move slowly, or move glacially, or move moderately quickly, or with utmost urgency... the trick is knowing what's actually right, isn't it? That's where the metaphor breaks: this isn't like driving a car where the right speed is obvious.
This is just an abstract, so maybe I am missing something, but it sounds like a subtle moral judgment is being inserted here that faster is better: younger people react faster often because of impulsivity. Why should we believe that a faster response time is a good thing, aside from swerving to avoid an accident and the like? Is that what was under measure here?
In any culture that worships consumerism, yes, importance will always be linked to speed. But in a culture that is deeply connected to agrarianism, for example, it would be easier for people to see that many important things must be done slowly.
reply