Try this right now, ask ChatGPT whether you should take a job with a toxic boss, no growth, and a pay cut. Count the pros and cons it hands back. A Redditor named u/Ok_Negotiation_2587 ran this exact test across dozens of real decisions, good ones and terrible ones, and hit the same wall every time.
Four pros, four cons, evenly matched. It closes with a line about “it depends on your priorities.” Good decisions. Bad decisions. Obvious decisions. They all come back looking like a coin flip, no matter how lopsided the real situation actually is. The list isn’t measuring your situation, it’s measuring the template.
That’s the trap. A decision with one enormous dealbreaker and six minor upsides gets drawn exactly like a 50/50 split. The symmetry feels like analysis, but it’s formatting dressed up as judgment.
The Redditor built four follow-up prompts that break that symmetry and force the model to actually weigh things instead of padding a list. Run them in order on your next real decision, and pay attention to how fast the balance shifts.
🧪 Run This 10-Second Test First
Start with your normal pros-and-cons request, the one you always type. Once the list lands, paste in the four prompts below one at a time. Watch how much the shape of the answer changes.
1. Weight Them
Give each pro and con a weight from 1 to 10 for how much it matters in my situation: [situation]. Then total each side and tell me which way it points.
This one uses simple constraint-based scoring. A weak pro worth a 2 shouldn’t cancel out a con worth a 9. Now the model has to do the math and say so out loud instead of hedging.
2. Find The Dealbreaker
Which single con, if it is true for me, ends this decision on its own? What would I need to check to find out if it is true?
This isolates the one variable that actually matters instead of quietly averaging everything else together. A balanced list buries the item that counts under seven that don’t, and this drags it straight to the top.
3. Delete The Filler
Remove every pro and con from your list that would apply to almost any option I could pick. Show me what is left.
This is a subtraction technique, not an addition one. Half the list usually disappears here, because most bullet points would show up no matter what you were deciding between in the first place.
4. Argue The Lopsided Version
If this decision were obvious, which side would be obvious? Make that case in three sentences, then tell me what would have to be true for you to be wrong.
This is a steelman prompt, borrowed straight from debate practice. It forces a real position instead of a diplomatic shrug, then hands you the exact conditions that would flip that position.
👀 What The Results Actually Mean
If Prompt 3 wipes out half your list, the original balanced answer was never real analysis. It was a thorough-sounding template stretched to fit whatever you happened to ask it, nothing more.
If Prompt 2 surfaces one dealbreaker you hadn’t properly weighted, that’s your actual decision. Everything else on the list was noise dressed up as data, and you can stop rereading it.
And if you run all four and the decision still looks genuinely close, now you know that for real. That’s a very different kind of confidence than a generic four-and-four list ever gave you. It survived actual pressure testing instead of a template pretending to be one.
💡 Extra Tips
- Set a kill threshold before you start. Anything scoring under 5 on impact and probability gets cut automatically, no debate, no exceptions.
- Attack the cause, not just the format. Ask the model why it defaults to thorough instead of useful, and you’ll start spotting this same padding in other answers too.
- Save all four prompts somewhere you’ll actually find again. You’ll want them for the next big call, not just this one, so don’t let them get buried in old chat history.
I ran Prompt 2 on a decision I’d been sitting on for weeks, and the fog cleared in about ten seconds. Turns out I already knew the answer, I just hadn’t asked the model to stop being polite about it!
The original thread has more good reactions worth reading, including one commenter who skips pros-and-cons lists entirely and jumps straight to a weighted score. Go check it out, then run the test on whatever decision you’ve been circling. 🏴☠️
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why does ChatGPT give balanced lists even for obviously bad decisions?
ChatGPT defaults to showing what a “thorough answer” looks like rather than actually committing to a judgment. The symmetry comes from the template, not from real analysis. To break this pattern, force it to take a stance first: ask for a recommendation in one sentence with a confidence level (1, 10), then request only the reasoning that moved it off the fence. The verdict-first approach stops the four-and-four template from forming.
Q: Should I ask for weighted scores instead of just pros and cons?
Yes, weighting forces real prioritization. Ask ChatGPT to score each factor 1, 10 on impact and probability, then eliminate anything below 5. One commenter also found success adding “act as a ruthless investor, not a therapist” to push past the neutral middle ground and force stronger reasoning.
Q: Which prompt actually changes decisions?
“Find the dealbreaker” is the one commenters say genuinely shifted their thinking. Most hard decisions don’t hinge on counting pros and cons, they hinge on one or two things that matter far more than everything else. This prompt forces you to identify that critical factor and check if it actually applies to your situation.
Q: Do reversible and permanent decisions need different analysis?
Absolutely. Trying a tool for a month is nothing like moving cities or leaving a job. Ask ChatGPT which parts are reversible, what it would cost to reverse, and what it would cost to be wrong. This reframes from “best option overall” to “best safe first step.”
ChatGPT gives every decision about the same number of pros and cons, even the obvious ones
by u/Ok_Negotiation_2587 in ChatGPTPromptGenius