To build a powerful market position, ask: 1) What conventional wisdom is secretly wrong? 2) What harsh truth are clients desperate for someone to finally acknowledge? 3) What strong point of view makes insiders uncomfortable but resonates deeply with ideal clients?

To get past historian Yuval Noah Harari's guarded media persona, Levitt asked why his book *Sapiens* succeeded despite violating a key storytelling rule (lacking characters). This specific, insightful challenge demonstrated deep preparation and prompted a novel, open conversation, breaking through Harari's standard talking points.

A key feature making economics research robust is its structure. Authors not only present their thesis and evidence but also anticipate and systematically discredit competing theories for the same outcome. This intellectual honesty is a model other social sciences could adopt to improve credibility.

Experts often view problems through the narrow lens of their own discipline, a cognitive bias known as the "expertise trap" or Maslow's Law. This limits the tools and perspectives applied, leading to suboptimal solutions. The remedy is intentional collaboration with individuals who possess different functional toolkits.

When confronting seemingly false facts in a discussion, arguing with counter-facts is often futile. A better approach is to get curious about the background, context, and assumptions that underpin their belief, as most "facts" are more complex than they appear.

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.

A two-step analytical method to vet information: First, distinguish objective (multi-source, verifiable) facts from subjective (opinion-based) claims. Second, assess claims on a matrix of probability and source reliability. A low-reliability source making an improbable claim, like many conspiracy theories, should be considered highly unlikely.

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.

Formally trained experts are often constrained by the fear of reputational damage if they propose "crazy" ideas. An outsider or "hacker" without these credentials has the freedom to ask naive but fundamental questions that can challenge core assumptions and unlock new avenues of thinking.