I’ve been solving some logic games this summer, and I’ve noticed there are two opposing strategies I employ. I think it’s good to use them both when facing many different kinds of decisions.
Strategy 1 is “Stay In It.” In the course of the minutes I’ve spent on this logic puzzle, I’ve collected certain information that will help me. A lot of the information is too fuzzy to write down, so it has to stay in my head. But it can be useful in taking the next step in solving the puzzle, so I collect it. This knowledge only stays with me while I’m actively thinking about the problem.
Strategy 2 is “Walk Away.” Sometimes I stop being able to see new possibilities because I’m stuck in patterned thinking. In this case, it’s good to walk away, do something else, and come back later. Many times, I’ll see an overlooked insight that will make the next steps obvious.
What strategy do you use? With the sorts of challenges conductors face every day – programming, logistics planning, leadership decisions, student emotional challenges, etc. – we can often lean too heavily on one or the other of these two strategies. I personally rely a lot on “Walk Away,” because I trust my unconscious mind to continue working on the problem while I’m mentally elsewhere. But “Stay In It” has its place, and I run the risk of losing deep understanding of some salient details when I leave active focus on the problem.
Someone who leans the opposite way from me will maintain that deep understanding of the details, but risks finding unexpected solutions or new ideas when they don’t “Walk Away” from their problems and come back fresh.
Both are of value, and understanding how to balance the two is a lifelong challenge.