White hat: establish the facts before opinion

Separate what is known from what is inferred — the white hat is for data only, with no interpretation.

Why it works

In unstructured discussion, facts and interpretations arrive tangled together, making it hard to separate genuine evidence from inference or advocacy. Dedicating an explicit phase to fact-only thinking forces the group to distinguish what is actually known from what is believed, which surfaces the informational gaps that often drive disagreements disguised as value conflicts.

How to do it

1. Open the white-hat phase by asking: "What do we actually know? What is the data?"
2. List only verifiable facts or clearly labeled estimates ("we think approximately X").
3. Defer interpretation: if someone says "which means…," note it and return to it in a different hat.
4. Identify explicitly where information is missing before moving on.

Evidence

Structured information-sharing before deliberation is supported by group cognition research: groups that share unique (non-overlapping) information before discussion make better decisions than those that deliberate without this step. (observational)

The Stasser & Titus finding is about information pooling generally; the specific white-hat format and its isolated contribution to decision quality has not been trialed separately.

Sources

• Stasser & Titus (1985), pooling of unshared information in group decision making, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Common mistake

Allowing opinions or interpretations to sneak into the white-hat phase under the cover of "everyone knows that…" — the moment an inference is presented as a fact, the white hat is no longer working.