Socratic Inquiry Coach V2.0
Six-step probing to correct biases and decide
Socratic Inquiry Coach V2.0
Six-step probing to correct biases and decide
Showcase
Description
When you are hesitant about a major decision, when you find yourself in an argument thinking 'I seem to have a point but can't articulate why,' when you finish reading a paper and feel 'something is off but can't pinpoint it' — this skill uses six-step progressive structured questioning to peel back the layers of your thinking.
Related Skills
View all
ResearchWittgensteinian Inquiry
We “think” every day, but much of what we call thinking is really just going in circles. What holds us back is often not a lack of thought, but unclear wording, leaps in reasoning, or asking the wrong question—problems we cannot see for ourselves, while others may hesitate to point them out. • 📝 You have a one-sentence viewpoint but cannot explain what it really means. “Money can buy happiness”—what does “happiness” mean? And what does “buy” mean here? Does the meaning change in another context? • 🤔 You are arguing with someone and feel that something “kind of makes sense, but you cannot say what is wrong.” Logical leaps hide between “so” and “therefore,” making them difficult to spot. • 🌀 You finish an article feeling that “something is off,” but cannot identify it. Some sentences sound profound until you question how they are being used—and then they lose their meaning. • 😵 You have a vague anxiety but do not know how to sort it out. “I am anxious about AI”—are you worried about unemployment, losing control, or something else? • 🎭 Many statements like “you absolutely have to…” are really commands quietly disguised as facts. Mixing two different language games can create an “objective necessity” that does not actually exist. This skill was made to address these problems. It is not a consultant that “gives you answers,” but a language therapist: it does not decide what is right or wrong for you. Instead, like Wittgenstein himself, it uses persistent questioning to push your thinking toward clarity—bringing ambiguity into view and revealing false questions for what they are. Inquiry is not about teaching you to win. It is about helping you see. It does not provide standard answers or motivational platitudes. It believes that often, we are not failing to think hard enough; our wording is unclear, our reasoning jumps, or we are asking the wrong question. When an ambiguous question is broken down into a series of clear, smaller questions, the answer often emerges on its own—and what we truly need is the honesty to “say exactly what we mean.” > Whatever can be said can be said clearly; and whatever cannot be said should be passed over in silence. (This is a paraphrase of the final sentence of Wittgenstein’s *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus*, not a word-for-word quotation.)
Thinking Cocoon Breaker Lite
Critical Thinking Cocoon Breaker Everyone says critical thinking is the most important skill in the AI era — but where do you practice it? A real gap "Critical thinking is the most important ability in the AI era" — you've heard this a hundred times. But then what? No one tells you where to practice. You go to the gym to build muscle, driving school to learn to drive, and test prep to pass the driving test — but critical thinking? Where do you go? Read articles? Those are someone else's thoughts. Listen to podcasts? Those are someone else's conversations. Scroll short videos? Those are prechewed for you. If you don't think it through yourself, it's never yours. Critical Thinking Cocoon Breaker was born for this gap — a 10-minute daily thinking gym. --- How it works - Choose a topic — AI recommends 3–5 thought‑provoking topics from the day's news, or you can submit your own. - Choose depth — 1 to 4 rounds, up to you. Recommended: 2 rounds, just 10 minutes. - Share your view — 100–200 words. Doesn't need to be perfect, just honest. - AI plays devil's advocate — not to attack you, but to give you new information, perspectives, and angles to think things through together. - Cognitive checkup — a 5‑dimension blind‑spot profile plus 3‑dimension critical thinking scores. See what you can't see. - Stand‑up reward — after the debate, get a personalized comedy bit and story card to make you smile while waking you up. --- Winning a debate ≠ thinking it through. --- Three truths 1. Most people don't lack the desire to think critically — they lack a setting. Commute time, lunch break, 10 minutes before bed — that's your thinking arena. 2. Critical thinking is not talent — it's a muscle. Neglect it and it atrophies; exercise it and it grows. One 10‑minute session, and after ten you'll feel the difference. 3. The biggest blind spot is not knowing you have one. The 5‑dimension cognitive blind‑spot profile shines a light where you can't see yourself. --- In one sentence: It's not about making you win — it's about helping you see. ⚠️ Important notice: This skill is designed solely to create a training scenario for improving critical thinking. The debate process and conclusions represent personal viewpoints on specific topics; there is no right or wrong. It does not constitute a definitive judgment on any event.
LessWrong: Disputes & Decisions
Turn controversial issues, policy discussions, article arguments, and comment-section disputes into clearer, testable analysis that can guide action. This skill draws on the LessWrong rationalist tradition, but does not represent an official LessWrong position. Its focus is not on winning debates, but on distinguishing facts, causal explanations, value judgments, policy proposals, predictions, and personal strategies—and avoiding the mistake of treating emotion, conviction, or volume as evidence. It helps you examine evidence quality, unknowns, base rates, and alternative explanations; identify exaggerated claims such as “everyone thinks,” anecdotal reasoning presented as a general rule, attacks on motives, and identity-based arguments; and steelman the other side’s most reasonable position. It also looks for the real disagreements that would change the conclusion and analyzes the relationship between incentives, constraints, and practical action. Whether you are reviewing a controversial article, improving your own argument, understanding a comment-section conflict, or comparing options with incomplete information, you will receive tentative conclusions, key reservations, conditions for updating your judgment, and suggested next steps. For time-sensitive or specialized facts, it will clearly identify what needs further verification rather than filling gaps with false certainty.
Information
- Version
- v4
- Last updated
- Runtime credits
- Usage-based
- Models
- Auto
