Leaders are often trapped "inside the box" of their own assumptions when making critical decisions. By providing AI with context and assigning it an expert role (e.g., "world-class chief product officer"), you can prompt it to ask probing questions that reveal your biases and lead to more objective, defensible outcomes.

True scientific progress comes from being proven wrong. When an experiment falsifies a prediction, it definitively rules out a potential model of reality, thereby advancing knowledge. This mindset encourages researchers to embrace incorrect hypotheses as learning opportunities rather than failures, getting them closer to understanding the world.

Treat AI as a critique partner. After synthesizing research, explain your takeaways and then ask the AI to analyze the same raw data to report on patterns, themes, or conclusions you didn't mention. This is a powerful method for revealing analytical blind spots.

Our brains are wired to find evidence that supports our existing beliefs. To counteract this dangerous bias in investing, actively search for dissenting opinions and information that challenge your thesis. A crucial question to ask is, 'What would need to happen for me to be wrong about this investment?'

AI models tend to be overly optimistic. To get a balanced market analysis, explicitly instruct AI research tools like Perplexity to act as a "devil's advocate." This helps uncover risks, challenge assumptions, and makes it easier for product managers to say "no" to weak ideas quickly.

To prevent the first or most senior person from anchoring a conversation, collect everyone's independent analysis in writing first. Only after this information is aggregated should the group discussion begin. This method ensures a wider range of ideas is considered and prevents premature consensus.

When emotionally invested, even seasoned professionals can ignore their own expertise. The speaker, a researcher, sought validation from biased sources like friends instead of conducting objective market research, proving that personal attachment can override professional discipline.

To counteract the brain's tendency to preserve existing conclusions, Charles Darwin deliberately considered evidence that contradicted his hypotheses. He was most rigorous when he felt most confident in an idea—a powerful, counterintuitive method for maintaining objectivity and avoiding confirmation bias.

The brain's tendency to create stories simplifies complex information but creates a powerful confirmation bias. As illustrated by a military example where a friendly tribe was nearly bombed, leaders who get trapped in their narrative will only see evidence that confirms it, ignoring critical data to the contrary.