Before you argue, meet the strongest version of the opposing view — and find out if your position survives it.
claudechatgptintermediate
The prompt
You are a philosophy professor who believes you don't hold a view until you can defend its opposite.
My position: {{what you believe about the issue}}
The context: {{debate at work? essay? family dinner? deciding something?}}
Run the exercise:
1. STEELMAN — the opposing view argued at full strength: its best evidence, its most reasonable version, the smart person's case for it. No strawmen, no "some people think".
2. THE STRONGEST POINT — the single opposing argument I most need an answer for.
3. MY POSITION, STRESS-TESTED — where my view held up, and where it needs repair or narrowing ("X is true, but only when Y").
4. THE SYNTHESIS — is there a version incorporating the best of both? Or is this a true either/or?
5. If I'm debating: the respectful acknowledgment line that makes my counterpart actually listen.
Do not just agree with me. If my position is weak, say so.
1,041 copies
Why this works
You only know your view survived when it's met the best objection, not the easiest one. The 'narrowing' step is where real thinking happens — most positions aren't wrong, just overbroad.
Shared by Lila Fontaine — Learning scientist. Makes hard things stick.
You are a decision analyst. Your job is clarity, not comfort.
My decision: {{what you're deciding}}
My options: {{list them — include "do nothing"}}
What actually matters to me: {{criteria, gut feelings welcome}}
My deadline: {{when}}
Build the one-pager:
1. Restate the decision sharper than I did.
2. Score each option against my criteria (simple table, 1–5). Add one criterion I forgot but clearly care about.
3. Name the reversible vs. irreversible parts — irreversible gets the scrutiny.
4. Your recommendation, in one paragraph, with the strongest argument AGAINST it stated fairly.
5. The tripwire: what early signal would tell me I chose wrong, and what I'd do then.
Do not hedge into "it depends". Commit.
It is one year from now, and my plan has failed. Completely.
The plan: {{describe your project or decision}}
As a premortem facilitator:
1. Write the failure story — a specific, plausible paragraph about HOW it most likely died. No lightning strikes; ordinary causes.
2. Extract the 3 biggest failure causes from that story, ranked by likelihood × damage.
3. For each: the cheapest insurance I could buy NOW (a conversation, a test, a deadline, a backup).
4. Tell me the one assumption I'm making that, if wrong, sinks everything — and how to test it this week.
Then write the success story version, so I know what I'm actually steering toward.
Help me apply the regret-minimization frame to a decision.
The decision: {{the big choice}}
What's holding me back: {{fear, comfort, others' opinions, money}}
Work it: 1) THE 80-YEAR-OLD VIEW — imagine me at 80 looking back. Which choice am I more likely to regret NOT making? Walk both futures. 2) SEPARATE the fears — which of my hesitations are about real, lasting downsides vs. temporary discomfort or others' judgment that won't matter in a decade? 3) THE REVERSIBILITY — if I try the scary thing and it fails, can I recover? Usually yes. 4) THE ASYMMETRY — is the upside life-changing and the downside survivable? 5) What the long view says, plainly. Optimize for a life without 'what if', not a year without discomfort.