Ask what alternative perspectives would say
Deliberately steelman the strongest objection to your current position before treating it as settled.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Deliberately steelman the strongest objection to your current position before treating it as settled.
- Why it works: People construct arguments from their own perspective and tend to miss objections that are visible from other vantage points. Explicitly asking "what would someone who disagrees say?" recruits the alternative perspective’s strongest case rather than the weakest version your own mind generates for it. The strongest objection, not the easiest to dismiss, is the one that should govern whether you update your position.
- Evidence: Plausible mechanism, limited direct outcome data.
- Avoid: Generating the weakest version of the opposing view and defeating it, then concluding the position is settled — this is strawmanning disguised as open-mindedness.
Why it works
People construct arguments from their own perspective and tend to miss objections that are visible from other vantage points. Explicitly asking "what would someone who disagrees say?" recruits the alternative perspective’s strongest case rather than the weakest version your own mind generates for it. The strongest objection, not the easiest to dismiss, is the one that should govern whether you update your position.
How to do it
- 1After developing a position, ask: "Who has the most thoughtful objection to this, and what is it?"
- 2Reconstruct that objection in its strongest form — not in the form easiest to dismiss.
- 3Ask: "Does this objection reveal a weakness in my position that I need to address?"
- 4If yes, revise; if no, be able to state specifically why the objection fails in this case.
What the evidence says
MechanisticPerspective-taking and adversarial collaboration improve reasoning quality in research settings. The specific Socratic practice of actively seeking the strongest objection is philosophical practice rather than a separately studied psychological intervention.
Honest caveat: People are poor at genuinely inhabiting an opposing perspective, particularly for emotionally charged positions. The practice improves with deliberate habit and is most powerful when a genuine opponent articulates the objection directly.
- — Moshman & Geil (1998), "Collaborative reasoning," Cognitive Development — on reasoning improvement through peer dialogue
Common mistake
Generating the weakest version of the opposing view and defeating it, then concluding the position is settled — this is strawmanning disguised as open-mindedness.
IX Coach plays a structured devil’s advocate role before you commit to significant conclusions, presenting the strongest version of the challenge so you’ve tested your position against something real.
Practice this with IX Coach →