Coaching practices for Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

Describe almost anything you are working through and IX Coach finds the practices whose real-world fit is closest. For Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, these are the strongest matches in the current practice library.

Does this sound like the set of challenges you might be facing?

• I lock onto the first explanation that fits and then just look for confirmation of it
• The first explanation that fits locks in for me and then I stop looking, reading everything afterward as proof I was right
• I keep gathering more and more data without ever deciding what would settle the question, so the research just sprawls on forever and I’m collecting whatever turns up instead of hunting for the specific thing that would prove or kill each possible explanation.
• The grimmest explanation is always the first one I reach for, and I just accept it without ever asking if something else might have caused this
• I’m leaning hard on the evidence that lines up with what I want to be true and brushing off the rest

Practices that may help

1. Hold multiple maps simultaneously
   For complex situations, develop two or three competing models and check which fits better.
   The Map Is Not the Territory
2. Systematic alternatives: generate three more explanations before deciding
   Force yourself to generate at least three alternative explanations or interpretations before committing to the first plausible one.
   Lateral Thinking, Made Practical
3. Test branches by forming specific, falsifiable hypotheses
   Turn each branch into a testable hypothesis before gathering data.
   Issue Tree Analysis
4. Generate alternative, more accurate explanations
   For any setback, produce at least three competing explanations before settling on one.
   Learned Optimism: Seligman’s ABCDE Method
5. Evaluate evidence by its likelihood ratio, not by how it makes you feel
   Ask how much more likely this evidence would be if you’re right versus if you’re wrong.
   Bayesian Thinking: How to Update Beliefs Rationally
6. Count the assumptions each explanation requires
   When two explanations fit the facts, count how many unverified assumptions each one rests on.
   Occam’s Razor: Prefer the Simpler Explanation
7. For many decisions, going with your gut outperforms lengthy analysis
   Over-explaining reasons for a preference can actually detgrade the quality of affective predictions.
   Affect Forecasting: Why You Mispredicted How You’d Feel
8. Apply several models to the same problem at once
   When models from different fields point to the same answer, confidence rises; when they conflict, you learn something important.
   Mental Models: Charlie Munger’s Latticework Approach
9. Use multiple analogies for the same problem
   Draw on at least two different analogies for a new problem and see where they agree and diverge.
   Analogical Reasoning
10. Apply the same evidence standard regardless of whether you like the conclusion
    Grade the evidence before you know which conclusion it supports.
    Motivated Reasoning

Describe your situation in your own words to search the complete practice library.