Research Method STORM

[iancleary]

https://x.com/heynavtoor/status/2067194761446920264?s=46

I need to research [YOUR TOPIC].
Simulate 5 different expert perspectives on this topic:

1. THE PRACTITIONER: works with this daily.
   What do they know that academics miss?
   What practical realities are usually ignored?
2. THE ACADEMIC: has studied this for years.
   What does the peer reviewed evidence actually say?
   Where does the evidence contradict popular belief?
3. THE SKEPTIC: thinks the mainstream view is wrong.
   What is the strongest counterargument?
   What evidence do proponents conveniently ignore?
4. THE ECONOMIST: follows the money.
   Who profits from the current narrative?
   What financial incentives shape the research?
5. THE HISTORIAN: has seen similar patterns before.
   What historical parallels exist?
   What can we learn from how those played out?
   For each perspective give me:

• Their core position in 2 sentences
• The strongest evidence supporting their view
• The one thing they would tell me that no other perspective would

Based on the 5 perspectives above, map the contradictions:

1. Where do two or more perspectives directly contradict
   each other? List each conflict with the specific claims
   that clash.
2. Which perspective has the strongest evidence?
   Which has the weakest? Why?
3. What is the one question that, if answered, would
   resolve the biggest contradiction?
4. What does EVERY perspective agree on?
   (This is likely true. Even opponents confirm it.)
5. What topic did NONE of the perspectives address?
   (This is the blind spot in the whole field.
   Often the most valuable finding.)

Synthesize everything from the 5 perspectives and the
contradiction map into a research briefing:

1. THE ONE PARAGRAPH SUMMARY: explain this topic as if
   briefing a CEO who has 60 seconds and needs nuance,
   not just the headline.
2. THE 5 KEY FINDINGS: most important things I now know,
   ranked by reliability. For each, note which perspectives
   support it and which challenge it.
3. THE HIDDEN CONNECTION: one non obvious link between
   findings that only shows up when you look at all 5
   perspectives together.
4. THE ACTIONABLE INSIGHT: based on all the evidence,
   what should someone in [YOUR ROLE] actually DO
   differently? Be specific.
5. THE FRONTIER QUESTION: the one question that, if
   answered, would change everything about how we
   understand this topic.

Now peer review your own research briefing:

1. CONFIDENCE SCORES: rate each of the 5 key findings
   on a 1 to 10 scale for reliability. Explain each score.
2. WEAKEST LINK: which claim are you least confident in?
   What specific info would you need to verify it?
3. BIAS CHECK: which perspective might be overrepresented
   in your synthesis? Did one voice dominate?
4. MISSING PERSPECTIVE: is there a 6th angle I should
   have included that would change the conclusions?
5. OVERALL GRADE: if a Stanford professor reviewed this
   briefing, what grade would they give and why?
   What would they tell me to fix?