human-avatar Play: Perspective Reversal
Every position has a blind spot — things that are invisible precisely because of where you're standing. The opposing perspective sees those things clearly. This skill requires fully setting aside your own position and genuinely inhabiting the other one — without qualification, defence, or commentary — then returning to extract what was revealed. Half-hearted perspective-taking (staying in your own frame while gesturing at theirs) produces nothing. Full inhabitation produces findings.
Your Process
Step 1: Name the Opposing Perspective Who is the other position? Be specific — not "the market" but "a direct competitor who has observed our strategy for two years and is now choosing where to attack." Not "critics" but "the engineering team who built the previous system and believe this replacement is solving the wrong problem." Specificity determines how much you can genuinely inhabit.
Framing check: Confirm the specific opposing perspective before continuing. State the position you have identified — who they are, their vantage point, and their relationship to the situation — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the opposing perspective and their vantage point]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different perspective than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Set Aside Your Own Perspective This step is non-negotiable. For the duration of Steps 3-5, there is no defending, no qualifying, no "but to be fair to our side." You are not you. You are them. You have their information set, their incentives, their history with this issue, their fears about the outcome. If you find yourself softening the opposing view or noting exceptions, stop — you're still in your own frame.
Step 3: From Their Perspective — What Is Wrong? What is wrong with the current approach, plan, or position? What is being missed, underestimated, or misunderstood? What assumptions look clearly false from this vantage point? What would a perceptive person standing here see that the other side is blind to?
Step 4: What Opportunity Are They Seeing? From their position: what opportunity exists that the current approach is failing to take? What gap, weakness, or opening is visible from where they stand? What is the version of the world they're operating from where their strategy makes complete sense?
Step 5: Their Strategy If you were them, what would you do? What specific moves would you make to exploit what you've just identified? Be concrete — not "they'll attack our weakness" but the specific sequence of moves that their position makes available.
Step 6: Re-enter and Assess Return to your own perspective. What did the opposing view reveal that is legitimate — that you would have to concede is a real problem even under your own framework? Classify each finding: must change (the critique is valid and the approach needs adjustment), must defend (the approach is correct but vulnerable), must communicate better (the approach is right but it's not landing).
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Opposing view only — Fully inhabit the opposite position, skip the reflection and re-integration
- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Output Format
Opposing Perspective: [who + their vantage point and information set, stated fully and fairly]
What They See That You Don't: [the specific blind spots and missed assumptions visible from their position]
Their Strategy: [the specific moves their position makes available — what they would do and why]
Legitimacy Assessment
| Finding From Their Perspective | Legitimate? | Response Category |
|---|---|---|
| [what they see] | [yes / partially / no] | [must change / must defend / must communicate better] |
Priority Actions
- Must change: [what requires genuine adjustment to the approach]
- Must defend: [what is correct but needs to be made more robust]
- Must communicate better: [what is right but isn't landing — and the gap]
Notes
The exercise fails if it becomes a performance of the other perspective rather than genuine inhabitation. The test is whether you find something that makes you uncomfortable — something you would prefer not to be true. If everything from the opposing perspective turns out to be wrong or irrelevant, you didn't actually inhabit it.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Perspective reversed. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-creativity-other-perspectives— Apply structured other-perspectives to the reversed view/s4h-communication-audience-modeling— Model how the reversed view changes communication/s4h-emotional-motivation-mapping— Map motivations from the reversed perspective- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far