When you want to avoid bias and make better decisions, it helps to look at a problem through more than one "lens." If you only see things from your own point of view, you might miss something important. The "Three Lenses" framework is a simple way to remind yourself to get input from different kinds of people:

• Lens 1: The Insider
  Someone who is directly involved or affected. They know what it’s like day-to-day.
• Lens 2: The Expert
  Someone with special knowledge or experience—even if they aren’t directly involved. They can share facts, research, or lessons learned.
• Lens 3: The Outsider
  Someone with a different background or role. They might see things you and your group don’t notice.

By using all three lenses, you get a fuller, more balanced view and avoid the trap of only hearing what you expect.

Example:
If you’re deciding whether to change how your group meets, you could:

• Ask a group member who attends every meeting (Insider)
• Ask someone who has run meetings for other groups (Expert)
• Ask a person who doesn’t usually join, or someone from another team (Outsider)

Each person will notice different things. When you put their ideas together, you’ll see the whole picture and make a less biased decision.

It’s natural to look for information that supports what you already think. But if you only listen to people who agree with you, you might miss problems or better ideas. To avoid this, try to find someone who sees things differently or might disagree with your first idea. This is called playing devil's advocacy and transforms from a confrontational debate tactic into a constructive thinking tool when you actively invite it.

For example, if you think a new plan is the best way forward, ask someone who might have concerns or who has tried something similar and didn’t like it. You can say, “I’m thinking about this idea, but I want to make sure I’m not missing anything. Do you see any problems with it?” Listening to different opinions can help you spot issues early and make your idea even stronger.

Let's observe how this might play out in a real conversation:

• Marcus: I've been thinking we should stop accepting cash payments entirely and go digital-only. It would save us so much time on accounting.
• Natalie: I’m not sure. About 30% of our older customers still prefer cash. They've told me they don't trust online payments. We might lose them.
• Marcus: I hadn't considered that. What if we kept cash as an option but charged a small handling fee to encourage digital adoption?
• Natalie: That could work. We'd need to communicate it carefully, but it gives people choice while still moving toward your goal.

Notice how Marcus considered Natalie's disagreement rather than ignoring it. He discovered a significant blind spot—the preferences of older customers—and refined his approach to something more balanced and practical. The disagreement didn't kill the idea; it made it better.

Sometimes finding disagreement requires you to specifically request it. People often hesitate to voice contrary opinions, especially if they sense you're already leaning in a particular direction. By inviting disagreement, you learn more and make better choices.

In an era of information overload, sometimes you’ll hear a fact or claim that sounds important, maybe in a meeting, online, or from a friend. Before you accept it as true, it’s a good idea to check it with at least one more independent source. This is called a “two-source” check.

Take this situation: if someone says, “Most people prefer working from home,” don’t just take their word for it. Look for another source—like a survey, a news article, or someone else’s experience—to see if it matches. If both sources agree, you can be more confident. If they disagree, you know to look a little deeper before making a decision.

You don’t have to double-check every small detail, but for claims that could affect your choices, this habit helps you avoid mistakes and spot information that might be wrong or incomplete.

By including input from more than one person, looking for viewpoints that disagree with your first idea, and using a simple two-source check for important claims, you’ll make better decisions and avoid common thinking traps. In the next activities, you’ll get to practice these skills in real-life situations.