Counterintuition Probe

Counterintuition Probe

Goal

Attack the obvious answer and see whether a less intuitive explanation or move is stronger.

This skill does not oppose ideas for sport. It probes whether "what everyone assumes" is actually the best reading of the situation.

When To Use

• the leading answer feels too obvious
• common sense is dominating the room
• the same explanation keeps winning without hard pressure
• a surprising alternative might explain more

Scope Boundaries

In scope:

• identify the dominant assumption
• generate 1-3 serious counterintuitive alternatives
• compare them against the obvious answer
• recommend whether the obvious answer survives

Out of scope by default:

• contrarianism for its own sake
• endless philosophical debate
• random weird alternatives

Workflow

1. State the obvious answer.
2. Name why it feels compelling.
3. Run a short guided reflection:
   • what would make the obvious answer fail
   • what assumption is carrying it most
4. Generate 1-3 counterintuitive alternatives.
5. Test which explains more with fewer assumptions.
6. Use consider-the-opposite explicitly against the preferred view.
7. Name what would falsify each view.
8. Recommend whether to keep, weaken, or replace the obvious answer.

Output Contract

Always return:

1. obvious_answer
2. why_it_feels_right
3. reflection_breakpoints
4. counterintuitive_alternatives
5. comparative_strength
6. falsifiers
7. recommended_position
8. recommended_followup
9. next_step

Guardrails

• Do not reward novelty alone.
• Do not keep weak alternatives alive just because they are surprising.
• Prefer falsifiable alternatives over clever rhetoric.
• Use counterintuition to improve judgment, not to create performative disagreement.

Anti-Patterns

• contrarian theater
• shallow devil's advocacy
• weirdness without explanatory gain