Skip to main content
grasp.study
About
Explore
Pricing
Log in
Try it for free
Back to course
👋
Welcome to a Grasp lesson
Create a free account
to keep studying and create your own study path.
Applying Eponymous Laws
·
Module 1
Foundations of Critical Thinking
1
Razor Thinking for Relationship Issues
Apply Occam's Razor and Alder's Razor to select the simplest adequate explanation for a bra fit issue and for a partner's behavior in a vee relationship.
2
Hanlon's Razor: Reframing Perceived Hostility
Apply Hanlon's Razor to reframe perceived hostility as possible incompetence in a client's complaint about lingerie and in a misunderstanding between partners in a vee.
3
Sharpening Your Skepticism: Applying Hitchens' Razor
Apply Hitchens' Razor to dismiss unsupported claims in lingerie marketing and in relationship advice from uninformed outsiders.
4
Chesterton's Fence: Understanding Before Changing
Apply Chesterton's Fence to investigate the purpose of an existing bra design element before modifying it and to understand existing relationship boundaries before proposing changes.
5
Russell's Teapot: Burden of Proof in Design and Relationships
Apply Russell's Teapot to assign the burden of proof when evaluating a novel bra design claim and when challenging an unfalsifiable assertion about relationships.
6
Hume's Guillotine: Fact vs. Norm in Lingerie & Relationships
Apply Hume's Guillotine to distinguish descriptive facts from prescriptive norms in lingerie industry standards and in societal expectations about relationship structures.
7
Münchhausen Trilemma: Justification Limits in Design and Diplomacy
Apply the Münchhausen Trilemma to identify the limits of justification when defending a design choice to a client and when justifying a relationship agreement to skeptics.
Socratic Questioning for Client Needs & Boundaries
Apply the Socratic Method to guide a client toward understanding her fitting needs through targeted questions and to facilitate boundary conversations in a vee relationship.
Previous module
Next module
Cognitive Biases in Perception and Judgment