TL;DR: A Reddit user shared a short prompt that makes an LLM filter its answers through three old academic ideas: the Johari Window, Occam’s Razor, and Grice’s maxims. It’s untested so far, but the logic holds up and it costs you nothing to try.
What the post actually says
The author (u/InfluenceDapper6476) tells the model to pass your text or question through three lenses. Two of them shape the reply (Johari Window and Occam’s Razor). The third, the Grice Window, wraps the reply at the start and the end. They also tell it to keep working this way for the rest of the chat, so you only paste the setup once and then talk normally.
Their claim is that this focuses the model fast in a conversational setting. The post has 2 upvotes and one commenter asking for examples on complex tasks. So treat it as an experiment, not a proven trick. Nobody has shown a before and after yet, and that is the part that would actually convince people.
What each lens does, in plain words
Johari Window. A psychology tool with four boxes: what you and others both know, what others see but you don’t, what you know but haven’t shared, and what nobody knows yet. For a prompt, it pushes the model to ask what it knows, what you haven’t told it, and where the gaps are, instead of guessing past them. Say you ask, “Should I raise my prices?” A model using this lens might reply, “I don’t know your margins, your churn, or what competitors charge. Here is how the answer changes depending on those.”
Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions usually wins. This keeps the model from piling on extra theories, caveats, and detours. If your email open rate dropped, the razor says check the subject line and send time before blaming an algorithm change nobody has confirmed.
Grice’s maxims. A linguist’s rules for good conversation: say enough but not too much (quantity), say what you believe is true (quality), stay relevant (relation), and be clear (manner). Using it as the opening and closing check means the answer starts on topic and ends without rambling. In practice that looks like a first sentence that answers the question and a last line that tells you the next step.
Put together, you’re asking for answers that flag what’s missing, skip the extra assumptions, and stay tight. That’s a sensible target. The jargon is just a compact way to say it.
Where it might help
- Long chats where the model drifts into filler and starts repeating itself
- Questions with missing context, where you want it to name the gap instead of inventing an answer
- Quick advice or analysis where you want the short version first, with detail only if you ask
- Any session where you’re tired of three paragraphs of hedging before the actual point
One honest caveat
The original wording is dense. Labels like “tripartite 2 x Lens followed by a clipper” and “JW, OC & GW” might work because the model recognizes the named concepts. They might also be doing less than the author thinks. A model can follow plain instructions just as well, and the concept names are probably carrying most of the weight. So the fair test is to run both versions on the same question and compare.
Prompt of the Day
Here is a plain-language version you can paste at the start of a chat:
For the rest of this conversation, check every reply against three filters before you send it.
- Johari Window: separate what we both know, what I may be missing, and what is still unknown. If something is missing, say so instead of guessing.
- Occam’s Razor: pick the simplest explanation or answer that fits. Do not add assumptions I did not give you.
- Grice’s maxims: open by addressing my actual question, give only as much as needed, stay truthful and relevant, and close with a clear, brief wrap-up.
Keep doing this until I say stop.
How to test it
Pick one real task, like a messy business question or a decision with missing details. Run it once with no setup, then once with the prompt above. Compare length, how many assumptions it made, and whether it asked for what was missing. Use the same model and the same wording for the question both times, or the comparison means nothing. If it’s better, keep it. If not, you lost two minutes.
Call to Action
If you try it, report back with the task and what changed. The one commenter on that thread is asking for exactly that, and so am I. Real examples beat clever vocabulary every time.
Elegant & Simple Fix
by u/InfluenceDapper6476 in ChatGPTPromptGenius