<p>Well, first of all, let's briefly discuss the process of thinking.</p>

<p>Lone, silent thinking is the internalization of words taught to you at a very young age. Clinical literature suggests that if you miss learning period you cannot learn it anymore. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Feral Child Wikipedia</a></p>

<p><strong>Speculation:</strong> Based on this, I strongly believe that understanding words and speaking came earlier in our evolutionary process than thinking. This posits the idea that we're better at discussing things in social settings than thinking them internally.</p>

<p>Now, writing obviously came later than understanding words, speaking words and thinking, however, it is a bit different than thinking. When you are writing you externalize something within and actually look at it, which entirely changes the perception of the subject.</p>

<p>Also, to further my point. As I mentioned above, thinking is the internalization of a conversation and it is really hard to think properly because it requires you to activate different parts of your personality that can actually argue/communicate as you would in a normal conversation. Technically speaking in order to think properly you need to create a cognitive dissonance otherwise it is going to be confirmation bias.</p>

<p>It's also useful to bring in terms such as subconscious and conscious. Carl Jung thought that those two exist 'in different dimensions'. You can attribute symbolic and metaphorical aspects of your psyche to the subconscious, while the verbal aspect of your mind is conscious. In other words, there is a difference between unarticulated and articulated knowledge.</p>

<p>Unarticulated knowledge is somewhat subconscious, so you do not have full access to it, however, if you manage to articulate it - you gain full access. Thinking is a quick process and thoughts might slip away while writing is slower and you actually perceive, correct yourself and rectify the issues as you go through. (Same applies to the communication except there are two or more heads instead of one.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-25T13:23:32.563Z
2018-01-25T13:23:32.563Z
Goga Vachnadze
<p>I can think two reasons why talking about a problem helps :</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Explaining your knowledge can reveal gaps and bugs</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>The following extract is from the book <a href="https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=k2CJDQAAQBAJ&amp;dq=smart%20thinking%20art%20markman&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjKpfjEwPLYAhWCKlAKHeYBDYsQ6AEIJTAA" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Smart Thinking</a> by Art Markman :</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/S2HbZ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/S2HbZ.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Talking about a problem changes its mental representation</strong></li>
</ul>

<blockquote>
  <p>Our <a href="http://sourcesofinsight.com/we-change-when-we-change-our-mental-representation/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">mental representation</a> is the ideas, concepts, stories, theories,
  and skills that make up how we internalize something in our mind. 
  Gardner writes:</p>
  
  <p>“Generically, mind change entails the alteration of mental
  representations.  All of us develop mental representations quite
  readily from the beginning of life.  Many such representations are
  serviceable, some have notable charm, others are misleading or flatly
  wrong.  Mental representations have a content:  we think of these
  contents as ideas, concepts, skills, stories, or full-fledged theories
  (explanations of the world).  These contents can be expressed in words
  — and in a book, that medium is customarily used.  However, nearly all
  contents can be expressed in a variety of forms, media, symbol
  systems: these systems can be exhibited publicly as marks on a page
  and can also be internalized in a ‘language of the mind’ or a
  particular ‘intelligence.’”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The mere fact of trying to formulate our thinking into speech, changes its representation (<a href="http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/download/1826/1598" rel="nofollow noreferrer">see this article</a>).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-25T06:53:10.753Z
2018-01-25T06:53:10.753Z
DesignerAnalyst
<p>I found this related Wikipedia article:</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging</a></p>

<p>Rubber duck debugging</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In software engineering, rubber duck debugging or rubber ducking is a
  method of debugging code. The name is a reference to a story in the
  book The Pragmatic Programmer in which a programmer would carry around
  a rubber duck and debug their code by forcing themselves to explain
  it, line-by-line, to the duck.[1] Many other terms exist for this
  technique, often involving different inanimate objects.</p>
  
  <p>Many programmers have had the experience of explaining a problem to
  someone else, possibly even to someone who knows nothing about
  programming, and then hitting upon the solution in the process of
  explaining the problem. In describing what the code is supposed to do
  and observing what it actually does, any incongruity between these two
  becomes apparent. More generally, teaching a subject forces its
  evaluation from different perspectives and can provide a deeper
  understanding. By using an inanimate object, the programmer can try
  to accomplish this without having to interrupt anyone else.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-22T16:56:07.253Z
This [is exactly what I wrote to you as a comment to your question when you first asked it](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/18976/talking-about-a-problem-helps-software-developing/18984#comment35698_18976). :) It is a comment (I suggest you include it in your question even, instead). This does not constitute an answer (based in Psychology or Neuroscience) on this site.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-23T07:35:42.740Z
@StevenJeuris yes, you are right. I am sorry. I have not seen it. I just came across this term some days ago and wanted to improve this here.
guettli
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-23T10:01:19.863Z
You can, by improving/editing your question. This is more relevant in your question than your personal background you start of with (it shows this is not anecdotal, but a widespread observation), for example (one of the reasons I did not up vote the question).
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-07T12:05:50.777Z
2018-09-07T12:05:50.777Z
guettli
<p>I am 42 and doing software developer since 20 years.</p>

<p>Since several years I know that talking about a problem helps.</p>

<p>If I can't find a an easy solution myself I talk to a team mate or ask at a site like stackoverflow.</p>

<p>Often it is enough to speak about it (or write the question). If I do this, I often find the solution myself.</p>

<p>I would like to find a matching term (from 
psychology or neuroscience) for this.</p>

<p>Question: How do you call this?</p>

<p>If you have links to related studies, please leave a comment. Thank you.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-24T09:50:39.640Z
This isn't the answer i don't think, but i know what you're talking about - i believe it has something to do with the concept of the logos itself. That is to say, writing or speaking something out exposes it for deeper high-resolution analysis by the rest of the brain, as though it were an object in the world. Whereas simply using your imagination alone to host the problem and analyze it potentially cuts it off from other problem-solving faculties of the brain.
Logan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-24T11:10:51.930Z
I don't know if there is an actual name for it, but there is an idiom often heard which is "[a problem shared is a problem halved](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/a-problem-shared-is-a-problem-halved)"
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-24T12:36:20.547Z
Generally writing a problem down in a form good comprehensible enough for someone to answer is good initial step in solving it. On the level of anecdotal evidence it's easy to find support for what I said e.g. http://www.phils-career-blog.com/2012/01/problem-definition/ I don't know if there are any systematic studies of this. Supposedly it's part of the "Feynman algorithm": http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm LOL.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-24T12:44:15.290Z
Supposedly it's because writing it down makes you understand it better. Polya's Principles start with "Make sure you understand the problem" instead. http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/pinewiki/ProblemSolvingTechniques.html?highlight=%28CategoryAlgorithmNotes%29
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-24T17:20:40.450Z
Is this question related to [Is there a name for “loopback teaching” technique (explaining something to yourself to learn it)?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/12987/4397)
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-24T21:53:52.443Z
Also known as ['rubber duck debugging'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging) in software engineering.
Steven Jeuris
<cognitive-psychology><problem-solving><human-factors>
Talking about a problem helps (software developing)
guettli
# Talking about a problem helps (software developing)

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-01-24)

I am 42 and doing software developer since 20 years.

Since several years I know that talking about a problem helps.

If I can't find a an easy solution myself I talk to a team mate or ask at a site like stackoverflow.

Often it is enough to speak about it (or write the question). If I do this, I often find the solution myself.

I would like to find a matching term (from
psychology or neuroscience) for this.

Question: How do you call this?

If you have links to related studies, please leave a comment. Thank you.

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, problem-solving, human-factors

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This isn't the answer i don't think, but i know what you're talking about - i believe it has something to do with the concept of the logos itself. That is to say, writing or speaking something out exposes it for deeper high-resolution analysis by the rest of the brain, as though it were an object in the world. Whereas simply using your imagination alone to host the problem and analyze it potentially cuts it off from other problem-solving faculties of the brain.  
> **username_2**: I don't know if there is an actual name for it, but there is an idiom often heard which is "[a problem shared is a problem halved](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/a-problem-shared-is-a-problem-halved)"  
> **username_3**: Generally writing a problem down in a form good comprehensible enough for someone to answer is good initial step in solving it. On the level of anecdotal evidence it's easy to find support for what I said e.g. http://www.phils-career-blog.com/2012/01/problem-definition/ I don't know if there are any systematic studies of this. Supposedly it's part of the "Feynman algorithm": http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm LOL.  
> **username_3**: Supposedly it's because writing it down makes you understand it better. Polya's Principles start with "Make sure you understand the problem" instead. http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/pinewiki/ProblemSolvingTechniques.html?highlight=%28CategoryAlgorithmNotes%29  
> **username_4**: Is this question related to [Is there a name for “loopback teaching” technique (explaining something to yourself to learn it)?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/12987/4397)  
> **username_5**: Also known as ['rubber duck debugging'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging) in software engineering.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-01-25. Score: 2

Well, first of all, let's briefly discuss the process of thinking.

Lone, silent thinking is the internalization of words taught to you at a very young age. Clinical literature suggests that if you miss learning period you cannot learn it anymore. [Feral Child Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child)

**Speculation:** Based on this, I strongly believe that understanding words and speaking came earlier in our evolutionary process than thinking. This posits the idea that we're better at discussing things in social settings than thinking them internally.

Now, writing obviously came later than understanding words, speaking words and thinking, however, it is a bit different than thinking. When you are writing you externalize something within and actually look at it, which entirely changes the perception of the subject.

Also, to further my point. As I mentioned above, thinking is the internalization of a conversation and it is really hard to think properly because it requires you to activate different parts of your personality that can actually argue/communicate as you would in a normal conversation. Technically speaking in order to think properly you need to create a cognitive dissonance otherwise it is going to be confirmation bias.

It's also useful to bring in terms such as subconscious and conscious. Carl Jung thought that those two exist 'in different dimensions'. You can attribute symbolic and metaphorical aspects of your psyche to the subconscious, while the verbal aspect of your mind is conscious. In other words, there is a difference between unarticulated and articulated knowledge.

Unarticulated knowledge is somewhat subconscious, so you do not have full access to it, however, if you manage to articulate it - you gain full access. Thinking is a quick process and thoughts might slip away while writing is slower and you actually perceive, correct yourself and rectify the issues as you go through. (Same applies to the communication except there are two or more heads instead of one.)


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2018-01-25. Score: 2

I can think two reasons why talking about a problem helps :

* **Explaining your knowledge can reveal gaps and bugs**

The following extract is from the book [Smart Thinking](https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=k2CJDQAAQBAJ&dq=smart%20thinking%20art%20markman&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKpfjEwPLYAhWCKlAKHeYBDYsQ6AEIJTAA) by Art Markman :

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/S2HbZ.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/S2HbZ.png)

* **Talking about a problem changes its mental representation**

> Our [mental representation](http://sourcesofinsight.com/we-change-when-we-change-our-mental-representation/) is the ideas, concepts, stories, theories,
> and skills that make up how we internalize something in our mind.
> Gardner writes:
>
> “Generically, mind change entails the alteration of mental
> representations. All of us develop mental representations quite
> readily from the beginning of life. Many such representations are
> serviceable, some have notable charm, others are misleading or flatly
> wrong. Mental representations have a content: we think of these
> contents as ideas, concepts, skills, stories, or full-fledged theories
> (explanations of the world). These contents can be expressed in words
> — and in a book, that medium is customarily used. However, nearly all
> contents can be expressed in a variety of forms, media, symbol
> systems: these systems can be exhibited publicly as marks on a page
> and can also be internalized in a ‘language of the mind’ or a
> particular ‘intelligence.’”

The mere fact of trying to formulate our thinking into speech, changes its representation ([see this article](http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/download/1826/1598)).


---

### Answer by username_0 on 2018-09-07. Score: -1

I found this related Wikipedia article:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging>

Rubber duck debugging

> In software engineering, rubber duck debugging or rubber ducking is a
> method of debugging code. The name is a reference to a story in the
> book The Pragmatic Programmer in which a programmer would carry around
> a rubber duck and debug their code by forcing themselves to explain
> it, line-by-line, to the duck.[1] Many other terms exist for this
> technique, often involving different inanimate objects.
>
> Many programmers have had the experience of explaining a problem to
> someone else, possibly even to someone who knows nothing about
> programming, and then hitting upon the solution in the process of
> explaining the problem. In describing what the code is supposed to do
> and observing what it actually does, any incongruity between these two
> becomes apparent. More generally, teaching a subject forces its
> evaluation from different perspectives and can provide a deeper
> understanding. By using an inanimate object, the programmer can try
> to accomplish this without having to interrupt anyone else.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: This [is exactly what I wrote to you as a comment to your question when you first asked it](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/18976/talking-about-a-problem-helps-software-developing/18984#comment35698_18976). :) It is a comment (I suggest you include it in your question even, instead). This does not constitute an answer (based in Psychology or Neuroscience) on this site.  
> **username_0**: @StevenJeuris yes, you are right. I am sorry. I have not seen it. I just came across this term some days ago and wanted to improve this here.  
> **username_5**: You can, by improving/editing your question. This is more relevant in your question than your personal background you start of with (it shows this is not anecdotal, but a widespread observation), for example (one of the reasons I did not up vote the question).  

---

