PURPOSE AND GOAL
What is Reasoning Referee?
A tool for everyday people to better understand the thinking behind disagreements and difficult public issues.
THE PLAIN ANSWER
People do not enter a disagreement as blank slates.
Two reasonable people can encounter the same situation and reach different conclusions. Their upbringing, heritage, culture, education, profession, responsibilities, personal experiences, information sources, incentives, and exposure to risk can influence what they notice first, which consequences they fear, and which values they believe deserve the greatest protection.
Background does not determine a person’s beliefs, excuse weak reasoning, or make every conclusion equally sound. It does help explain why a conclusion that seems obvious to one person may look incomplete—or even dangerous—to another.
WHAT MAY SHAPE A VIEW
The experiences behind the answer.
- upbringing and family
- heritage and culture
- education and information sources
- profession, job title, and responsibilities
- community and faith traditions
- direct experience and personal history
- financial and institutional incentives
- exposure to risk—and who bears the consequences
THE GOAL
Understanding—not recruitment.
Reasoning Referee does not choose a political team, tell users which identity to adopt, or recommend a side merely because it is popular. Its goal is to help reasonable people understand other reasonable people who maintain a different point of view.
Understanding does not require agreement. The referee can still identify unsupported claims, inconsistent standards, fallacious arguments, missing evidence, or a conclusion that is better supported than its alternative. The difference is that the call is explained rather than hidden behind a label.
HOW IT SHEDS LIGHT
Four ways of checking the exchange.
Reasoning frameworks
Reveal the underlying question or principle being used to judge the decision.
Logical fallacy analysis
Tests whether an argument’s conclusion is stronger than the reasoning supporting it.
Cognitive bias checks
Highlights predictable mental shortcuts without using them as insults or proof of error.
Stake and incentive checks
Asks who gains, pays, bears the risk, protects a responsibility, or avoids blame.
WHERE IT HELPS
From city hall to the Thanksgiving table.
Prepare for a debate
Recognize the strongest opposing argument, anticipate weak reasoning, and discover the evidence that actually matters.
Follow a public meeting
Understand whether officials are debating outcomes, rights, authority, capacity, incentives, or different risks.
Navigate family disagreement
Move beyond labels and ask what experience, value, or fear makes the other person’s conclusion feel reasonable to them.
Check your own thinking
Apply the same standards to your preferred position that you would apply to the other side.
CURRENT TOOLKIT
The calls used by Reasoning Referee.
This table includes every framework, fallacy, bias, and stake check currently used in the published discussions. Each name opens a plain-language guide.
| Category | Call | Key question | Learn more |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning frameworksLenses for deciding what matters and how choices should be compared. | Pareto ImprovementWin-win: help someone without hurting anyone | Can the proposal be redesigned so at least one person gains and nobody loses? | Open guide |
| Kaldor–Hicks ImprovementGrow the pie, even if slices change | Do the total gains credibly exceed the total losses? | Open guide | |
| Opportunity CostCompared with what? | What better alternative does this choice prevent? | Open guide | |
| Rule of LawThe same rules, known in advance | Are the rules clear, stable, and consistently applied? | Open guide | |
| State CapacityCan they actually deliver? | Does the institution have the ability to carry out its promise? | Open guide | |
| Logical fallacy analysisChecks for argument patterns that make a conclusion sound stronger than its support. | StrawmanThat is not what they said | Was the real position replaced with an easier one to attack? | Open guide |
| False DilemmaOnly these two choices? | Have alternatives, combinations, or degrees been hidden? | Open guide | |
| Slippery SlopeShow the missing steps | Is a chain of consequences being treated as inevitable without support? | Open guide | |
| Hasty GeneralizationOne example is not the whole pattern | Is a broad claim resting on too few or unrepresentative cases? | Open guide | |
| Cognitive bias checksPrompts for noticing mental shortcuts that can influence anyone’s judgment. | Availability HeuristicThe vivid example feels common | Are memorable examples outweighing broader evidence? | Open guide |
| Loss AversionLosses loom larger | Is a possible loss receiving more weight than a comparable gain? | Open guide | |
| Omission BiasDoing nothing feels less blameworthy | Are the consequences of inaction being discounted? | Open guide | |
| Status Quo BiasFamiliar can feel correct | Is the current arrangement favored mainly because it already exists? | Open guide | |
| Stake and incentive checksChecks for interests, responsibilities, risks, and costs that may shape the exchange. | Stake & Incentive CheckWho gains, pays, or avoids blame? | What does each participant gain, lose, protect, or risk? | Open guide |
| Principal–Agent AnalysisWho decides, and who pays? | Is authority separated from accountability or consequences? | Open guide |