Sharp Thinking Lab

Design one personal rule to trigger System 2 deliberation when facing high stakes (e.g., "If I feel 100% sure in the first 5 minutes of a meeting, then I must list 3 reasons the idea will fail before speaking."):

Sharp Thinking Lab • Lesson 1 Participant Worksheet Page 2 of 2

Sharp Thinking Lab • Adult Learning Series Page 1 of 2

Facilitation Dynamics & Inquiry Guide

Lesson 2: Evidence Under Fire

Strategic Discussion Inquiries

1. On Persuasive Authority vs. Empirical Evidence:

"When a senior executive or renowned community leader asserts something with immense confidence, how does their charisma distort our willingness to ask for raw evidence?"

2. On Relative vs. Absolute Risk:

"If a headline proclaims 'Risk of project failure surges by 100%!', but the base failure rate went from 1 in 10,000 to 2 in 10,000, how is narrative framing manipulating our threat perception?"

3. On Incentives Behind Data:

"Who funded this study or commissioned this report? What incentive does the author have to reach this conclusion, and what data did they leave in the drawer?"

Group Protocol: "The Evidence Tribunal" (35 Mins)

Team Simulation

1. Briefing (3 mins): Teams receive the scenario of a vendor pitching an AI productivity software claiming a "340% ROI increase in 30 days."
2. Interrogation (15 mins): Groups dissect the claim using the C.A.R.S. checklist: sample size, selection bias (only successful clients surveyed), baseline productivity, and hidden costs.
3. Cross-Examination Form (10 mins): Teams draft 3 razor-sharp discovery questions designed to force the vendor to reveal hidden data.
4. Plenary Adjudication (7 mins): Each team presents their sharpest discovery question. The plenary votes on which question would save the company from a costly mistake.

Guard Against Cynicism

Skepticism is not cynicism. Skepticism says: "Show me the methodology so I can evaluate the claim." Cynicism says: "All data is corrupt and truth doesn't exist." Emphasize that rigorous standards exist to help us find reliable truth, not reject all knowledge.

Facilitation Pro-Tip

Keep visual examples accessible. If adult learners struggle with statistical jargon, reframe 'p-value' and 'standard deviation' into plain operational language: "Could this just be random noise, and how many times was it tested?"

Session 2 Synthesis Takeaway

Numbers do not lie, but people lie with numbers. High-caliber critical thinkers always inquire: "What is the denominator? What was excluded? What else could explain this correlation?"

Sharp Thinking Lab • Lesson 2 Facilitator Guide Page 2 of 2

Q3:

My Standard of Evidence Filter

What is one routine assertion in your work or civic life that you will refuse to accept without reviewing raw baseline evidence?

Sharp Thinking Lab • Lesson 2 Participant Worksheet Page 2 of 2

Sharp Thinking Lab • Adult Learning Series Page 1 of 2

Facilitation Dynamics & Inquiry Guide

Lesson 3: Logic and Fallacies

Strategic Discussion Inquiries

1. On False Dilemmas in Strategy:

"Why do leaders often frame decisions as: 'Either we adopt this radical plan or we will go bankrupt'? What third, fourth, and fifth options vanish when we accept binary framing?"

2. On Calling Out Fallacies Without Alienating People:

"If you shout 'That is an ad hominem fallacy!' in a board meeting, what happens to the conversation? How can you neutralize a bad argument without humiliating the speaker?"

3. On the Straw Man in Conflict:

"When someone restates your opinion as an exaggerated caricature, what is the best verbal move to reclaim your original position without escalating aggression?"

Protocol: "The Fallacy Sparring Ring" (35 Mins)

Paired Roleplay

1. Pairing & Assignment (3 mins): Partner A is the "Sophist" (armed with 3 fallacy prompts); Partner B is the "Reasoned Pivot".
2. Round 1 Sparring (10 mins): Partner A argues against a workplace policy (e.g., hybrid schedule) using a False Dilemma and an Ad Hominem attack. Partner B must use the De-escalation Pivot: acknowledge emotion, isolate the assertion, and ask for evidence.
3. Role Swap (10 mins): Partner B becomes the Sophist (arguing budget allocation with Straw Man and Slippery Slope); Partner A executes the Pivot.
4. Fishbowl Demonstration (7 mins): Facilitator invites one volunteer pair to demonstrate in front of the group; plenary evaluates the pivot's emotional and logical efficacy.
5. Debrief (5 mins): Reflect on how easy it is to slip into fallacies when emotions spike.

The "Fallacy Fallacy"

Warn participants about the Fallacy Fallacy: just because someone used poor logic or a fallacy in their argument does not automatically prove their conclusion is wrong. It only proves their argument failed to establish it.

The "Steel Man" Technique

Train adults in the "Steel Man" habit: before criticizing someone's position, re-articulate their argument in the strongest, most compelling form possible. If you can only defeat their weakest version, your thinking is fragile.

Session 3 Synthesis Takeaway

Logic is the structural architecture of thought. A sound decision requires both true premises and valid reasoning. When challenged, resist the urge to defend your ego; defend only truth and rigor.

Sharp Thinking Lab • Lesson 3 Facilitator Guide Page 2 of 2

Take a belief or policy you strongly disagree with. Write the most persuasive, logical version of that argument you can formulate:

Sharp Thinking Lab • Lesson 3 Participant Worksheet Page 2 of 2

Key Teaching Point: The problem was never "The elevator moves too slow." The real human problem was "The wait feels excruciatingly boring and frustrating." Installing full-length mirrors next to the elevators eliminated 90% of complaints at a fraction of the cost. Teach learners: Never solve the problem as initially presented.

Sharp Thinking Lab • Adult Learning Series Page 1 of 2

Facilitation Dynamics & Inquiry Guide

Lesson 4: Root Cause Radar

Strategic Discussion Inquiries

1. On the "Action Bias" Trap:

"Why do organizations reward leaders who rapidly apply ineffective band-aids to crises, but penalize leaders who take 48 hours to diagnose the root system? How does culture incentivize superficial fixing?"

2. On Halting the 5 Whys Prematurely:

"When teams ask 'Why?', why do they almost always stop as soon as they can blame human error ('Bob forgot to send the file')? What structural question remains unasked?"

3. On Problem Ownership:

"If a problem is framed so that only external entities can solve it ('The market is bad', 'Citizens don't care'), what happens to our agency? How does reframing return power to the team?"

Protocol: "The 4-Lens Reframe Lab" (35 Mins)

Group Reframe

1. Select a Pain Point (3 mins): Teams choose a stubborn issue (e.g., "Team members don't read our weekly updates.").
2. Lens 1 - Incentive Lens (7 mins): Reframe: How do current rewards or disincentives make the problematic behavior rational for people?
3. Lens 2 - Friction / User-Experience Lens (7 mins): Reframe: What micro-frictions, cognitive overload, or cumbersome steps exist in the process?
4. Lens 3 - Metaphor / Analogy Lens (8 mins): Reframe: How would a hospital triage desk, an airport control tower, or a master chef solve this?
5. Synthesis & Share (10 mins): Teams share their most provocative reframe. Plenary evaluates how the reframe unlocked novel solutions.

Avoid Linear Dogmatism

In complex human systems, problems rarely have a single linear cause. Remind participants that the 5 Whys is a diagnostic ladder, not a mathematical absolute; look for systemic feedback loops and multiple contributing factors.

Encourage "Bad" Ideas

During reframing, adult professionals often filter out radical angles to appear competent. Give explicit permission: "I want at least one ridiculous reframe per team that would get you laughed out of a traditional meeting."

Session 4 Synthesis Takeaway

Solving the right problem poorly is infinitely superior to solving the wrong problem perfectly. High-level problem solvers spend 80% of their energy falling in love with the problem before proposing a single solution.

Sharp Thinking Lab • Lesson 4 Facilitator Guide Page 2 of 2

Key Teaching Point: We routinely judge decisions solely by their outcomes ("Resulting"). But good decisions can produce bad outcomes due to uncertainty, and terrible decisions occasionally produce lucky outcomes. A critical thinker evaluates the decision process, not just the post-hoc luck.

Sharp Thinking Lab • Adult Learning Series Page 1 of 2

Facilitation Dynamics & Inquiry Guide

Lesson 5: High Stakes Decisions

Strategic Discussion Inquiries

1. On Reversible vs. Irreversible Choices:

"Jeff Bezos categorizes decisions into Type 1 (one-way doors: irreversible, slow down) and Type 2 (two-way doors: easily reversible, speed up). Why do organizations treat tiny Type 2 decisions with exhaustive bureaucracy, while rushing through irreversible Type 1 decisions?"

2. On Social Friction in Pre-Mortems:

"Why is it culturally dangerous in most companies to express doubt before a project launch? How does the Pre-Mortem legitimize critique by making pessimism a team assignment rather than disloyalty?"

3. On Setting Kill-Criteria in Advance:

"Why must you decide when to abandon a project BEFORE launching it? What happens to your brain's objectivity once your ego, reputation, and budget are on the line?"

Protocol: "The Prospective Pre-Mortem" (35 Mins)

Group Simulation

1. The Somber Setup (3 mins): Facilitator reads the prompt: "Look around this room. Imagine it is 12 months from today. The initiative we approved has failed so catastrophically that leaders were fired, clients left, and our reputation is ruined. The failure is absolute."
2. Silent Brainstorming (7 mins): In absolute silence, each participant writes down every specific, plausible disaster or neglected flaw that caused the demise.
3. The Round-Robin Cascade (10 mins): Going around the group, each person shares their top disaster scenario without defense or debate from others.
4. Triage & Prevention (10 mins): The group selects the top two existential vulnerabilities and crafts immediate structural safeguards into the project plan.
5. Debrief (5 mins): Compare the psychological feeling of a Pre-Mortem versus standard risk management checklists.

Beware "Analysis Paralysis"

Emphasize that critical thinking does not mean endless contemplation. Decision matrices are designed to clarify trade-offs rapidly, not stall action. Once criteria are weighted and risks addressed, decisive execution is essential.

Protect Dissenters

In adult workshops, leaders often try to explain away risks during the Pre-Mortem. Intervene actively: "No defending or mitigating yet! Right now, our only job is to let the disaster breathe."

Session 5 Synthesis Takeaway

You cannot control outcomes; you can only control your process. An elite decision maker builds explicit decision criteria upfront, looks failure dead in the eye through pre-mortems, and sets tripwires to exit gracefully when conditions shift.

Sharp Thinking Lab • Lesson 5 Facilitator Guide Page 2 of 2

Sharp Thinking Lab • Adult Learning Series Page 1 of 2

Facilitation Dynamics & Inquiry Guide

Lesson 6: The Reasoned Solution

Strategic Discussion Inquiries

1. On Chesterton's Fence in Change Management:

"When a new executive steps in and says, 'This paperwork approval process is pointless bureaucracy, let's eliminate it,' what risk do they run? How do we discover the forgotten danger the process was built to stop?"

2. On Epistemic Humility in Leadership:

"Why does society mistake certainty for leadership? How can a leader say 'I do not have enough evidence yet to form an opinion' while still projecting decisive authority?"

3. On Integrating All 6 Tools:

"How do biases, evidence evaluation, logical argument, root causes, and pre-mortems link together to form a seamless cognitive defense shield?"

Protocol: "The Peer Defense Gauntlet" (40 Mins)

Capstone Simulation

1. The Pitch (3 mins per team): Group presents their Reasoned Solution Brief: Problem, Systemic Root Cause, Proposed Intervention, and Falsification Criteria.
2. The Peer Inquest (5 mins per team): Audience members roleplay an analytical board using the 6 Course Lenses (e.g., "What bias is lurking here?", "What confounding variable did you ignore?", "What is the second-order perversity?").
3. The Graceful Pivot: Presenters must receive critique with intellectual poise, responding with evidence or acknowledging uncertainty rather than defending defensively.
4. Synthesis: The room scores the proposal not on charisma or slickness, but on logical rigor and robustness against unintended harm.

Avoid Defensive Hostility

Adult professionals naturally feel exposed when peer groups critique their ideas. Remind participants: "The goal here is not to win an argument; the goal is to make the idea indestructible together."

Celebrate Course Growth

Take 5 minutes at the end of the session to highlight how differently participants argue and question now compared to Session 1. Concrete feedback cements lasting behavioral change.

Capstone Synthesis Takeaway

Critical thinking is an act of civic and moral integrity. When we examine our biases, demand evidence, strip away rhetoric, diagnose root systems, and anticipate consequences, we build organizations and communities that flourish on truth.

Sharp Thinking Lab • Lesson 6 Facilitator Guide Page 2 of 2