Coaching practices for How to Evaluate Claims
Describe almost anything you are working through and IX Coach finds the practices whose real-world fit is closest. For How to Evaluate Claims, these are the strongest matches in the current practice library.
Does this sound like the set of challenges you might be facing?
- Someone stated something with total confidence and I just nodded and built on it
- I’m about to commit to something that sounds right on its own, but I haven’t traced what it would actually commit me to downstream
- My mind keeps stacking up every reason I’m right that this went badly, and I can’t seem to see anything that points the other way
- I notice I believe things mostly based on who said them
- A flimsy study that confirms what I want I’ll wave straight through, but a solid one that contradicts me I’ll pick apart for hours
Practices that may help
- Probe for evidence behind claims
Ask "what evidence supports that?" before accepting any factual or evaluative claim.
Socratic Questioning - Explore the implications and consequences of a position
Ask "if that is true, what follows?" to test whether accepting a claim creates downstream problems.
Socratic Questioning - Examine the evidence for and against
Systematically list what supports your interpretation and what doesn’t — like a fair-minded lawyer, not a prosecutor.
Check the Facts, Made Practical - Evaluate the argument structure, not the source
Map the logic and evaluate it independently of who made the argument.
Argument Mapping - Apply the same evidence standard regardless of whether you like the conclusion
Grade the evidence before you know which conclusion it supports.
Motivated Reasoning - Recognize when contrast is being used on you
Awareness of the contrast principle is the antidote — evaluate options against an independent standard, not the presented sequence.
The Contrast Principle, Made Practical - Use Socratic questioning to test each belief
Interrogate every claim with “how do I know this is true?” until only bedrock remains.
First-Principles Thinking, Made Usable - Apply the double-standard check: would I accept this reasoning if it pointed the other way?
Test whether you are holding your team’s arguments to a lower bar than the other side’s.
The Scout Mindset - Make your beliefs precise enough to be wrong
Vague claims cannot be falsified — sharpen your belief until it can be.
Falsification Thinking - 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
Related concerns
- Argument Quality
When your audience is engaged and able, weak arguments actively backfire — make every point earn its place.
Lead with argument quality on the central route
- How To Evaluate Evidence Fairly
Grade the evidence before you know which conclusion it supports.
Apply the same evidence standard regardless of whether you like the conclusion
- Argument Assumption Surfacing
Find the unstated assumptions that the argument needs to work.
Surface the hidden premises
- Argument Strength Rating
Assign a confidence to each "supports" or "rebuts" link, not just to the conclusion.
Rate the strength of each logical link
- Asymmetric Evidence Standards
Grade the evidence before you know which conclusion it supports.
- Evaluate Arguments Fairly
Test whether you are holding your team’s arguments to a lower bar than the other side’s.
Apply the double-standard check: would I accept this reasoning if it pointed the other way?
Describe your situation in your own words to search the complete practice library.