5 Mental Exercises to Defeat Cognitive Bias and Make Smarter Decisions

Let’s be honest. If your brain came with an owner’s manual, the first chapter would be titled “Warning: This Device Is Not As Rational As It Appears.” We navigate our days with a deep-seated faith in our own judgment, a quiet confidence that we see the world clearly and make decisions logically. Yet, science has shown us, time and again, that our minds are riddled with cognitive biases—systematic glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and hold stubbornly to flawed beliefs.

Acknowledging these biases is one thing. We can read about Confirmation Bias and the Sunk Cost Fallacy and nod sagely, recognizing these foibles in our friends, family, and political adversaries. But knowing is not the same as doing. It’s like reading a book about weightlifting and expecting your muscles to grow. To truly improve our thinking, we need to move from passive awareness to active practice. We need a mental workout plan.

That’s precisely what this is. Forget abstract theory. We’re rolling up our sleeves and getting practical. What follows are five powerful, research-backed “debiasing” exercises. Think of them as push-ups for your prefrontal cortex. These aren’t one-time fixes but mental habits you can integrate into your daily life—at work, at home, and in your own head—to counteract your brain’s laziest tendencies. They are designed to be a little uncomfortable, just like a good workout. But the payoff—clearer thinking, better decisions, and a more accurate view of reality—is well worth the effort.

Exercise 1: The Pre-Mortem—Your Crystal Ball for Failure

We are, by nature, a ridiculously optimistic species. When we embark on a new project—be it launching a business, planning a wedding, or starting a new diet—we are infected by a potent cocktail of enthusiasm and overconfidence. We focus on all the ways it will succeed. This rosy outlook is driven by the Optimism Bias, our tendency to overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes. It’s a great motivator, but a terrible project manager.

To fight this, we need to inject a dose of productive pessimism. Enter the Pre-Mortem. Coined by psychologist Gary Klein, this technique is as simple as it is profound. Right before you commit to a major decision, you gather your team (or just yourself) and imagine a different future.

How to Conduct a Pre-Mortem

1. Set the Scene: The decision has been made. The plan is finalized. Before you pop the champagne, announce to the group: “I have a crystal ball. I’m looking one year into the future, and I see that this project has failed. It’s been a complete and utter disaster. A catastrophe.”
2. Generate the Reasons: Give everyone five to ten minutes to independently write down every single reason they can think of for why this failure occurred. The key is that it has failed; this isn’t a “what-if” exercise. This framing liberates people from the social pressure of appearing negative or disloyal. They aren’t criticizing the plan; they are performing a factual historical analysis of a future event.
3. Share and Consolidate: Go around the room and have each person share one reason from their list, continuing until all unique reasons have been shared. Record them on a whiteboard for all to see. You’ll hear things you never would have heard otherwise: “Marketing didn’t get the funding they needed because we were too optimistic about early revenue,” or “The key engineer we depended on quit because she felt her concerns about the timeline were ignored.”
4. Strengthen the Plan: Now, with this list of potential pitfalls and vulnerabilities exposed, you can systematically address them. How can you mitigate these risks? How can you strengthen the plan to prevent this litany of disasters from coming true?

The Pre-Mortem works because it shatters the illusion of inevitable success. It bypasses the conformity and overconfidence that often doom projects from the start. It gives a voice to silent doubts and transforms vague anxieties into a concrete list of problems you can actually solve. It is the single best way to find the fatal flaws in a plan before they become fatal.

Exercise 2: The Designated Dissenter—Your Weapon Against Groupthink

Humans are social creatures. We crave belonging and harmony. In a group setting, this instinct can manifest as Groupthink, a psychological phenomenon where the desire for consensus overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. People self-censor their dissenting opinions to avoid “rocking the boat,” leading to a collective illusion of unanimity and, often, terrible decisions. The Bay of Pigs invasion and the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster are textbook examples of Groupthink in action at the highest levels.

To combat this, you need to institutionalize dissent. You need to formally appoint a Designated Dissenter, also known as a devil’s advocate.

How to Use a Designated Dissenter

1. The Formal Appointment: In any important group discussion or decision-making meeting, explicitly assign one person the role of the dissenter. Their job is not just to be difficult; it is to actively critique the prevailing opinion, question assumptions, and build the strongest possible case against the proposed course of action.
2. Rotate the Role: This shouldn’t be the same person every time. That person would quickly become branded as “the negative one.” The role should be rotated among team members. This accomplishes two things: First, it ensures that everyone gets practice in the skill of critical thinking. Second, it depersonalizes the criticism. When Jane is the Designated Dissenter this week, everyone knows she’s playing a role. Her critiques aren’t seen as a personal attack but as a fulfillment of her assigned duty.
3. Reward the Dissent: The group leader must actively protect and reward the dissenter. When they raise a valid point, the leader should say, “That’s an excellent point, Jane. Let’s explore that. What does everyone else think about that risk?” This signals to the entire group that dissent is not just tolerated; it is valued.

The Designated Dissenter gives “permission” for critical thought. It creates a safe space for doubt and forces the group to confront uncomfortable truths and unexamined assumptions. It ensures that the most popular option isn’t automatically crowned the best option, thereby inoculating the team against the seductive and dangerous allure of consensus.

Exercise 3: Prospective Hindsight—Talking to Your Future Self

Why do we continue to pour money into a failing investment, stay in a dead-end job, or finish a terrible movie? The answer is often the Sunk Cost Fallacy. This is our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money in it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits. We hate the feeling of having wasted our resources, so we waste even more in a futile attempt to justify the initial investment.

One of the most effective ways to escape this trap is a technique called Prospective Hindsight. It’s about bridging the gap between your present self and your future self. We often treat our future self like a stranger, someone who will magically have more time, energy, and willpower than we do now. Prospective Hindsight forces us to see our future self as a direct consequence of our present actions.

How to Practice Prospective Hindsight

This is a personal mental exercise. When facing a decision where sunk costs are a factor, take a moment and vividly imagine two futures:

1. Future A (Continue the Course): Imagine it is one year from now. You have continued to pour resources into this project/job/investment. What does your life look like? What are you feeling? Be specific. Are you still stressed about the same problems? Are you lamenting the additional time and money you’ve spent? Feel the frustration and regret of that future self. Let them “speak” to you.
2. Future B (Cut Your Losses): Now, imagine it is one year from now, but you decided to cut your losses today. It was painful at first. You felt the sting of “wasting” what you had already put in. But what does your life look like now? What new opportunities have you been able to pursue with the resources you saved? Feel the sense of relief and freedom that comes from being unburdened by a failing endeavor.

By making these future states tangible and emotional, you change the calculation in your head. The pain of the sunk cost (which is in the past and cannot be recovered) is weighed against the potential future pain of continuing down the wrong path. More often than not, this exercise makes it glaringly obvious that the wisest course of action is to stop digging.

Exercise 4: Considering the Opposite—The Antidote to Being Right

Here’s the mother of all biases: Confirmation Bias. It is our natural, deeply ingrained tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms our existing beliefs, while simultaneously avoiding or dismissing information that contradicts them. It’s why we click on headlines we agree with and unfriend people we don’t. It feels good to be right, and our brain is addicted to that feeling.

This bias is the engine of polarization and the enemy of learning. To fight it, you must engage in an exercise that feels profoundly unnatural: Considering the Opposite.

How to Consider the Opposite

This technique, championed by social psychologist Charles Lord and his colleagues, is beautifully simple. Before you solidify a strong opinion on any topic—be it political, personal, or professional—force yourself to perform these two steps:

1. Pause and Assume You’re Wrong: Take a moment and operate under the assumption that your initial belief is incorrect.
2. Articulate the “Other Side”: Then, build the best, most intellectually honest, and most persuasive argument you can for the opposite point of view. This isn’t about creating a flimsy “straw man” that’s easy to knock down. It’s about “steel-manning” the opposition. What are their most rational points? What evidence do they find most compelling? What values underpin their position?

If you’re pro-nuclear energy, what is the most intelligent argument against it, focusing on waste disposal and safety concerns? If you’re convinced a certain marketing strategy is the way to go, what is the most compelling case for the alternative strategy your colleague proposed?

Doing this does a couple of remarkable things. First, it can reveal legitimate weaknesses in your own position you were blind to. Second, even if you don’t change your mind, you will understand the issue with far greater depth and nuance. You’ll be able to say, “I understand why they believe X, and I respect that position, but I still believe Y because of Z.” This transforms you from a dogmatic believer into a thoughtful advocate.

Exercise 5: The Information Diet—Breaking Out of the Echo Chamber

Have you ever noticed that after you search for a product online, ads for it seem to follow you everywhere? Your digital world is a meticulously curated space, designed to show you more of what you already like. This creates an Echo Chamber, where your own beliefs are amplified and repeated back to you, and it’s supercharged by the Availability Heuristic—our tendency to judge the importance of things by how easily they come to mind. When all you see are stories about crime in your city, you’ll believe crime is skyrocketing, even if the data shows otherwise.

To get a clearer picture of the world, you need to go on an Information Diet. This isn’t about consuming less information, but about consuming it more consciously and critically.

How to Go on an Information Diet

1. Conduct an Audit: For one week, keep a log of your information sources. Where do you get your news? Which social media accounts do you follow? Which podcasts do you listen to? Be honest. At the end of the week, look at the list. How much of it simply confirms your existing worldview?
2. Diversify Your Sources: Intentionally add sources to your diet that challenge you. Follow a few thoughtful people on social media who you disagree with. Subscribe to a newsletter from a different political perspective. If you only read news from your home country, make a point to read an international source like the BBC, Al Jazeera, or Reuters. The goal isn’t to be converted, but to see how the same event can be framed in vastly different ways.
3. Prioritize Data Over Anecdote: Our brains are wired for stories, not statistics. A single, emotional story about someone winning the lottery (anecdote) has a bigger impact on us than the statistical reality of the astronomical odds against winning (data). When you see a compelling story, train yourself to ask, “Is this a single data point or a representation of a larger trend? What does the broader data say?” Seek out primary sources and statistical reports, not just commentary on them.

An information diet breaks the feedback loop of confirmation and availability. It replaces a passive, algorithm-driven firehose of information with a deliberate, curated, and more balanced consumption of knowledge. It is the essential final step in taking control of the inputs that shape your thoughts.

The journey to clearer thinking is a marathon, not a sprint. These five exercises—the Pre-Mortem, the Designated Dissenter, Prospective Hindsight, Considering the Opposite, and the Information Diet—are your training plan. They won’t make you infallible, but they will make you more thoughtful, more flexible, and far less likely to be duped by the slick, fast-talking con artist that is your own biased brain.

Focus on Language

Vocabulary and Speaking

Let’s pull back the curtain and look at some of the specific words and phrases we used in the article. The idea is always to choose language that is precise, powerful, and, most importantly, useful for you in your own conversations. Let’s explore about ten of these and see how you can work them into your vocabulary.

We’ll start with a word from the very beginning: foibles. We said we recognize cognitive biases as “foibles in our friends, family, and political adversaries.” A foible is a minor weakness or eccentricity in someone’s character. It’s a flaw, but not a fatal one. It’s a quirk. For example, you might say, “He’s a great guy, but he has a few foibles—like his inability to ever be on time.” It’s a wonderfully gentle and sophisticated word for a small character flaw. It’s less critical than “fault” and more specific than “weakness.” It suggests a level of tolerant understanding.

Next up, let’s talk about potent. We described the feeling of starting a new project as being infected by a “potent cocktail of enthusiasm and overconfidence.” Potent means having great power, influence, or effect. It’s often used to describe things like a potent drug, a potent argument, or a potent political symbol. It’s a much stronger word than just “strong” or “powerful.” It carries a sense of concentrated strength. A weak argument won’t convince anyone, but a potent one can change minds. It’s a great word to use when you want to emphasize a strong, almost chemical-like effect.

Let’s look at the word litany. In the Pre-Mortem section, we said you can “prevent this litany of disasters from coming true.” A litany is a tedious, repetitive series or recital. Originally, it’s a term for a series of prayers in a church service. But in modern use, it almost always has a negative connotation. You might complain about a friend who gives you a litany of excuses for being late, or a news report that is a litany of bad news. It suggests a long, boring, and often predictable list of negative things.

Now for a great verb: institutionalize. We said to combat Groupthink, you need to “institutionalize dissent.” To institutionalize something is to establish it as a norm or a formal part of a system or organization. It’s about taking something that might be informal or random and making it official, structured, and permanent. For example, a company might institutionalize a four-day work week, meaning it’s no longer a temporary experiment but a formal policy. It’s a powerful concept because it’s about changing the rules of the game, not just the behavior of the players.

Let’s talk about unanimity. We said Groupthink creates an “illusion of unanimity.” Unanimity means complete agreement among everyone in a group. If a jury reaches a unanimous verdict, it means every single member agreed. It’s a state of total consensus. The “illusion of unanimity” is a key part of Groupthink, where everyone thinks everyone else agrees, even if many people have private doubts. It’s a very precise word for total agreement, more formal than just saying “everyone agreed.”

Here’s another one: futile. In the section on the Sunk Cost Fallacy, we talked about a “futile attempt to justify the initial investment.” Futile means incapable of producing any useful result; pointless. It describes an action that is doomed to fail. Trying to argue with a brick wall is a futile effort. It’s a more dramatic and definitive word than “useless” or “pointless.” It carries a sense of sad hopelessness. The heroes in a tragedy might make one last futile stand against an overwhelming army.

Then we have tangible. We said that making future states “tangible and emotional” helps you make better decisions. Tangible means perceptible by touch; clear and definite; real. It’s the opposite of abstract or hypothetical. A business plan with abstract goals isn’t very helpful, but a plan with tangible milestones—like “increase sales by 10%”—is something you can work toward. By making a future outcome tangible, you’re making it feel real, like you can almost reach out and touch it, which makes it much more motivating.

Let’s look at the word dogmatic. We said that Considering the Opposite transforms you from a “dogmatic believer into a thoughtful advocate.” To be dogmatic is to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. A dogmatic person is stubbornly attached to their beliefs and is not open to debate. It’s a strong, negative term for someone who is closed-minded. It’s more than just being opinionated; it’s about asserting belief as undeniable fact.

Next, a very useful word: meticulously. We described our digital world as being “meticulously curated.” Meticulously means showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise. Someone who dresses meticulously pays attention to every detail of their outfit. A report that is meticulously researched is thorough and precise. It’s a great adverb to describe any action done with extreme care. It suggests a high level of craftsmanship and attention.

Finally, let’s talk about the word infallible. We concluded by saying these exercises won’t make you “infallible.” Infallible means incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. It’s an absolute term. As we discussed in a previous lesson, people are fallible (capable of making mistakes). No person, system, or plan is truly infallible. It’s a word you use to describe the concept of perfection or total correctness, often to say that something isn’t that. Acknowledging that you are not infallible is the first step toward intellectual humility.

So, we have foibles, potent, litany, institutionalize, unanimity, futile, tangible, dogmatic, meticulously, and infallible. Ten excellent words to add to your personal communication arsenal.

Now for our speaking focus. Today’s skill is the art of constructive disagreement. All of these debiasing exercises, especially the Designated Dissenter and Considering the Opposite, require you to disagree—either with a group or with yourself—without being disagreeable. This is one of the most valuable communication skills you can develop. It’s about challenging an idea, not a person.

The secret lies in the language you use. Instead of saying, “That’s a terrible idea,” you can use framing language. For example: “I’m going to play the devil’s advocate for a moment…” or “To help us see any blind spots, let’s try to steel-man the other side…” or “That’s an interesting perspective. I’m wondering, have we considered the potential risk of X?” Phrases like “Help me understand…,” “I’m curious about…,” and “What if we looked at it from this angle?” are your best friends. They signal curiosity, not combat.

Here’s your challenge: The next time you are in a discussion, either at work, with friends, or even online, and you disagree with something, I want you to consciously practice constructive disagreement. Your mission is to voice your dissenting opinion without using negative, judgmental, or confrontational language. Instead of attacking the idea (“Your plan won’t work”), ask a question that exposes its weakness (“What’s our contingency plan if the main supplier falls through?”). Afterward, reflect on how it went. Did the other person become defensive, or did it open up a more productive conversation? This practice is a real-world workout. It’s tough, but it will fundamentally change the way you interact with people and ideas.

Grammar and Writing

Welcome to the writer’s gym. Today’s workout is all about taking the theoretical concepts from our article and transforming them into a structured, persuasive piece of writing. The challenge is not just to understand the debiasing exercises, but to advocate for one.

The Writing Challenge:

Write a persuasive memo or a short formal proposal (around 500-750 words) to a manager, a team leader, a school principal, or any other figure of authority. Your goal is to convince them to adopt one of the five debiasing techniques discussed in the article (The Pre-Mortem, Designated Dissenter, Prospective Hindsight, Considering the Opposite, or The Information Diet) as a regular practice within your team or organization.

Your proposal must:

1. Identify a Problem: Briefly introduce a common problem the organization faces (e.g., projects that go over budget, lack of innovative ideas, resistance to change, unproductive meetings).
2. Propose a Solution: Clearly state which debiasing technique you are proposing and briefly explain how it works.
3. Connect Solution to Problem: This is the core of the proposal. You must persuasively argue how implementing this specific technique will directly help solve or mitigate the problem you identified.
4. Address Potential Objections: Acknowledge and preemptively address one or two potential concerns or objections someone might have (e.g., “This will take too much time,” or “This will create conflict”).
5. Call to Action: Conclude with a clear, respectful request for the next step (e.g., “I propose we pilot this technique in our next project meeting,” or “I would be happy to discuss this further at your convenience.”).

This task requires you to be clear, logical, and above all, persuasive. Let’s break down the grammar and writing tools you’ll need.

Grammar Spotlight: Conditional Sentences and Modal Verbs for Persuasion

Persuasive writing is all about showing cause and effect and exploring possibilities. Your two best friends here are conditional sentences and modal verbs.

• Conditional Sentences (If…, then…): These are the building blocks of logical arguments. They allow you to connect an action (the “if” clause) to a result (the “then” clause). You have several types at your disposal:
  • First Conditional (Real Possibility): Used for talking about future possibilities that are very likely. If + present simple, … will + infinitive.
    • Example: “If we implement the Pre-Mortem technique, we will identify critical flaws before they derail the project.” This shows a direct, probable outcome.
  • Second Conditional (Hypothetical Possibility): Used for talking about imaginary or less likely situations. If + past simple, … would/could/might + infinitive. This is perfect for exploring the benefits of your proposal.
    • Example: “If we appointed a Designated Dissenter, we could foster a more innovative environment.” This sounds less like a guarantee and more like an exploration of a positive potential, which can be very persuasive.
• Modal Verbs: These are auxiliary verbs like will, would, can, could, may, might, should, must. They allow you to express degrees of certainty, possibility, and necessity. Overusing “will” can make you sound arrogant or naive. A sophisticated writer uses a mix of modals to show nuance.
  • Expressing Possibility: could, may, might. “This approach might also reduce costs.”
  • Expressing Ability/Potential: can, could. “By ‘Considering the Opposite,’ our team can develop more robust strategies.”
  • Giving Advice/Recommendations: should. “I believe we should pilot this in our next quarterly review.”
  • Showing Certainty: will. Use this sparingly for your strongest points. “This will undoubtedly lead to more considered decisions.”

Combining them: The real magic happens when you mix conditionals and modals.

• Example: “If we were to institutionalize the role of a Designated Dissenter, we might find that team members feel more psychologically safe to voice their honest opinions, which could ultimately lead to fewer mistakes down the line.”

This sentence is packed with persuasive power. The Second Conditional (“If we were…”) presents the idea hypothetically, making it less threatening. The modals “might” and “could” show possibility and potential without overpromising.

Writing Technique: The “Problem-Solution-Benefit” Framework

The structure of your proposal is critical. Don’t just describe the technique; sell it. The most effective way is the classic Problem-Solution-Benefit framework.

1. Problem (The Hook): Start by identifying a pain point the reader cares about. Use data or a shared experience if you can.
   • Instead of: “We should use the Pre-Mortem.”
   • Try: “As we saw with the Q3 product launch, unforeseen challenges can lead to significant delays and budget overruns. Our team’s initial optimism left us unprepared for key logistical hurdles.”
2. Solution (The Introduction): Now, introduce your idea as the specific cure for that specific pain.
   • Try: “To mitigate these risks in the future, I propose we adopt a simple but powerful planning exercise known as the ‘Pre-Mortem.'” Briefly explain it in 1-2 sentences.
3. Benefit (The Argument): This is your main body. Use your conditionals and modals here. Connect every feature of the technique back to a benefit that solves the initial problem.
   • For the Pre-Mortem: “If we were to conduct a Pre-Mortem before the ‘Project Alpha’ kickoff, we could proactively identify potential points of failure. This wouldn’t just be a theoretical exercise; it would allow us to build specific contingency plans. For example, it might highlight our dependency on a single supplier, prompting us to secure a backup before it becomes a crisis.”
4. Addressing Objections (Building Trust): This shows you’ve thought critically.
   • Try: “While this may seem like it adds an extra hour to our planning meetings, the time invested upfront could save us weeks of reactive problem-solving later. The goal is not to foster pessimism, but to channel our collective intelligence to make our optimism more resilient.”

By structuring your writing this way and using the grammatical tools of persuasion, your proposal will be logical, respectful, and much more likely to succeed.

Vocabulary Quiz

Let’s Discuss

These questions are designed to move the debiasing exercises from the page into your real life. Think about your own experiences and share your insights. There’s no single right answer, only thoughtful discussion.

1. The Pre-Mortem in Real Life: Think of a project, either at work or in your personal life, that failed or didn’t go as planned. If you had conducted a Pre-Mortem before you started, what “causes of failure” do you think you would have realistically identified?
   • Dive Deeper: Was the failure due to unforeseen external events, or were there internal issues (like flawed assumptions, resource shortages, or personality clashes) that a Pre-Mortem might have brought to light? How does the Optimism Bias affect your personal planning?
2. Your Experience with Groupthink: Describe a time you’ve been in a meeting or group where you felt a strong pressure to conform. Did you speak up or stay silent? Why?
   • Dive Deeper: What would have made it easier to voice a dissenting opinion in that situation? If you were the leader of that group, how would you have tried to institutionalize dissent? Do you think a formally Designated Dissenter would have helped, or would it have felt artificial?
3. Fighting Your Sunk Costs: The Sunk Cost Fallacy is powerful and personal. It applies to careers, relationships, and even something as simple as finishing a bad book. Can you identify a “sunk cost” in your life right now?
   • Dive Deeper: Try the Prospective Hindsight exercise. What does your life look like one year from now if you continue on the current path? What does it look like if you cut your losses? What makes it so emotionally difficult to let go of sunk costs, even when we rationally know we should?
4. The “Considering the Opposite” Challenge: Pick a strong belief you hold (it can be political, social, or even about a sports team). Can you honestly articulate the best, most intelligent argument for the opposing view?
   • Dive Deeper: How does it feel to do this? Is it difficult to even find those arguments, thanks to your “information diet”? Did this exercise change your original belief at all, or did it perhaps deepen your understanding of why you hold it? Does this make you more or less sympathetic to those on the other side?
5. Auditing Your Information Diet: If you were to honestly audit your main sources of news and information, how much of a “bubble” or “echo chamber” are you in? What is one concrete step you could take this week to diversify your sources?
   • Dive Deeper: Why do we find echo chambers so comfortable? Is it just Confirmation Bias, or are there other factors at play (e.g., social identity, ease of access)? What’s the difference between consuming an opposing viewpoint to understand it, and consuming it just to get angry or mock it (a common practice online)? How can we engage with different views productively?

Learn with AI

Disclaimer:

Because we believe in the importance of using AI and all other technological advances in our learning journey, we have decided to add a section called Learn with AI to add yet another perspective to our learning and see if we can learn a thing or two from AI. We mainly use Open AI, but sometimes we try other models as well. We asked AI to read what we said so far about this topic and tell us, as an expert, about other things or perspectives we might have missed and this is what we got in response.

It’s excellent that we’ve covered these five very practical, actionable debiasing techniques. They are like tools you can pull out of your belt whenever you face a specific situation. However, if we only focus on these event-based interventions, we might miss the underlying current that powers bias in the first place: our emotions. I want to shed some light on the crucial, and often overlooked, role of emotional regulation as a master debiasing strategy.

The techniques we discussed are largely cognitive. A Pre-Mortem is a structured analytical process. Considering the Opposite is an intellectual exercise. But many of our most powerful biases aren’t triggered by a lack of logic; they’re triggered by a feeling. Confirmation Bias feels good—it’s a satisfying rush of validation. The Sunk Cost Fallacy is driven by the pain of regret and the fear of having wasted something. Groupthink is driven by the fear of social exclusion.

This means that a purely cognitive approach to debiasing has its limits. You can know, intellectually, that you should consider the opposite viewpoint. But if the topic is one that is central to your identity (like your politics or religion), the emotional threat of being wrong can be so powerful that your brain’s “threat detection” system (the amygdala) effectively hijacks your rational mind (the prefrontal cortex). When you’re in that emotionally “hijacked” state, no amount of logical prodding will work. You’re in fight-or-flight mode, defending your identity, not analyzing an argument.

So, a more foundational debiasing practice that wasn’t covered is interoception, or the skill of sensing the internal state of your body. It’s about noticing the physical precursors to a biased reaction. Before you lash out in defense of a belief, what do you feel? A tightness in your chest? A flush of heat in your face? A clenching in your stomach?

These are not just feelings; they are physiological data points. They are your body’s early warning system telling you that your emotional brain is taking the wheel. The real “master technique” is to learn to recognize this signal, pause, and self-regulate before you engage. This could involve taking a few deep breaths, stepping away from the conversation for a minute, or simply labeling the emotion (“Ah, this is defensiveness I’m feeling”).

This practice doesn’t replace techniques like the Pre-Mortem or Considering the Opposite. It makes them possible. You cannot effectively consider an opposing argument when your body is in a state of threat. You cannot conduct a clear-eyed Pre-Mortem if your judgment is clouded by intense anxiety about failure. Emotional regulation creates the necessary mental space for these cognitive tools to actually work.

So, if the five exercises in the article are your workout plan, think of emotional self-awareness as your nutrition and rest. Without it, your workouts will be far less effective, and you’ll be more prone to injury—in this case, the injury of being hijacked by your own primal, biased brain. Learning to ask “What am I feeling right now?” is perhaps the most powerful debiasing question of all.

Let’s Play & Learn

Interactive Vocabulary Building

Crossword Puzzle

Word Search