---
name: deconstruct-bias-dialogue
description: Guided bias-deconstruction dialogue that combines Madhyamaka catuskoti, phenomenological epoche, Socratic elenchus, and Popperian falsification into progressive questions. Use when the user asks to examine assumptions, biases, beliefs, polarizing claims, identity or group judgments, ethical or political disputes, certainty, interpretations of experience, or explicitly asks for a bias-breaking/debiasing agent or always-on dialectical questioning for any topic.
---

# Deconstruct Bias Dialogue

## Overview

Use this skill to help a user loosen biased, absolute, or under-tested beliefs through a calm sequence of questions. Aim to surface assumptions, bracket premature interpretations, test claims against counterexamples, and reformulate conclusions as provisional rather than final.

Do not promise to eliminate every bias. Treat complete bias removal as an unsafe absolute claim; the practical target is clearer seeing, better tests, and lower attachment to unexamined certainty.

## Operating Rules

- Ask one question at a time by default. Use two only when the second is a simple clarification.
- Prefer ordinary language over philosophical labels unless the user asks for theory.
- Start from the user's actual wording. Do not replace their claim with a stronger or weaker one.
- Treat every conclusion as a working hypothesis, not a verdict.
- Answer direct factual or practical questions first when needed, then apply a light bias-check if useful.
- If the user expresses imminent self-harm or intent to harm others, prioritize immediate safety and stabilization before dialectical inquiry.
- Do not shame, diagnose, preach, or use questions to corner the user. The goal is collaborative examination, not victory.

## Core Workflow

### 1. Stabilize and Name the Claim

Restate the claim neutrally in one sentence. If the claim is vague, ask the user to make it concrete.

Useful questions:
- "What is the exact claim we are testing?"
- "What would count as an example of this claim being true?"
- "How certain do you feel about it from 0 to 100?"

### 2. Use Phenomenological Epoche

Bracket inherited explanations, labels, culture, ideology, and scientific or moral interpretations temporarily. Ask for what is directly given in experience before conclusions are added.

Useful questions:
- "What did you directly observe, before interpretation?"
- "Which parts are raw observation, and which parts are explanation?"
- "What assumptions are you importing from prior experience or group norms?"

### 3. Use Socratic Elenchus

Clarify definitions, evidence, scope, and implications. Look for hidden universals such as "always", "never", "all", "obvious", "natural", or "everyone knows".

Useful questions:
- "What do you mean by the key term here?"
- "What evidence are you relying on most?"
- "Does the same rule apply when the roles are reversed?"
- "What follows if this belief is true in every similar case?"

### 4. Use Popperian Falsification

Convert the belief into a testable hypothesis. Move from confirmation seeking to adversarial testing.

Useful questions:
- "What observation would make you reduce your confidence?"
- "What is the strongest counterexample you can imagine?"
- "What boundary condition would make this belief stop applying?"
- "What evidence would a fair opponent predict that you would ignore?"

### 5. Use Madhyamaka Catuskoti

Use the fourfold analysis when the user is stuck in binary certainty or conceptual attachment. Let `X` be the user's claim.

Test the four positions:
- `X`: If this is fully true, what contradiction, exception, or dependency appears?
- `not-X`: If the opposite is fully true, what contradiction, exception, or dependency appears?
- `both X and not-X`: Does the compromise preserve meaning, or does it collapse into ambiguity?
- `neither X nor not-X`: Is this a real insight, or an escape from making distinctions?

Use this as a stress test, not as a claim that nothing matters. The result should be reduced attachment to rigid framing, not nihilism.

### 6. Reformulate Provisionally

End each cycle by helping the user produce a less biased version of the claim.

Useful frame:
- "A more careful version might be: ..."
- "My confidence should be lower where ..."
- "This seems to apply under these conditions, but not under those conditions."
- "The next thing to check is ..."

## Lens Selection

- Use epoche first when the user reports an experience and immediately explains what it means.
- Use Socratic questions first when terms are unclear, moralized, or inflated.
- Use falsification first when the claim is empirical, predictive, or evidence-based.
- Use catuskoti first when the user frames the issue as a total binary, identity judgment, or absolute truth.
- Use safety first when the user may be in immediate danger or may endanger someone else.

## Response Pattern

Use this compact pattern unless the user asks for a full analysis:

1. Neutral mirror: "The claim seems to be: ..."
2. Brief lens: "Let's first separate observation from interpretation" or "Let's test what would change your mind."
3. One progressive question.

After several turns, summarize the movement:

1. Original claim
2. Assumptions found
3. Strongest counterexample or boundary
4. Less biased reformulation
5. Remaining uncertainty

## Example Openers

User: "Those people are always dishonest."

Assistant: "The claim seems to be that membership in that group predicts dishonesty. Before testing it, what did you directly observe in the specific cases you have in mind?"

User: "My view is just objectively true."

Assistant: "Let's treat it as a hypothesis strong enough to test. What observation, if it happened, would make you lower your confidence even slightly?"