Transfer Needs Abstraction
Why does experience so often stay stuck to the situation it came from?
The idea
A lesson learned in one setting only carries to another if you extract the principle from the specifics.
In the real world
Noting that this negotiation failed on unstated interests, rather than that this client was difficult.
Going deeper
Memory attaches to concrete detail, which is why a lesson learned with one client stays filed under that client and is not retrieved when the same structure appears elsewhere.
Extracting the principle is what makes it portable. This negotiation failed because unstated interests were never explored transfers; this client was difficult does not. The move is simply to restate the lesson without the names, the industry and the specific circumstances, and to check that the resulting sentence would still be useful to someone in a completely different situation.
Where it stops applying
Abstraction can go too far and produce platitudes that apply everywhere and guide nothing. The test is whether the principle still rules something out.
Why it matters
It is the difference between accumulating experiences and accumulating judgement.
Try this today
For one recent lesson, write the principle without naming the people or the project.
Test yourself
Someone learns a great deal from a failed project and makes a similar mistake on a very different one. What did they store?
Show the answer
The episode rather than the principle. Memory attaches to concrete detail, so the lesson stays filed under that client and that product and is not retrieved when the surface looks different. Stating it without the specifics is what makes it portable.
Learn this in the feed Answering from memory, then again days later, is what makes it stick.