Dialectical Bootstrapping

Dialectical Bootstrapping is a technique for improving the accuracy of estimates in situations where multiple independent experts cannot be consulted easily. The process involves a single person making two judgements, the first providing an anchor and the second attempting to be as different as possible from the initial estimate, while still staying plausible. The final estimate is the average of the two.

To prompt Dialectical Bootstrapping, Stefan Herzog and Ralph Hertwig suggest using ‘consider-the-opposite instruction’ (invented by Lord, Lepper and Preston):

First, assume that your first estimate is off the mark. Second, think about a few reasons why that could be. Which assumptions and considerations could have been wrong? Third, what do these new considerations imply? Was the first estimate rather too high or too low? Fourth, based on this new perspective, make a second, alternative estimate.

Applicability for product management

Dialectical Bootstrapping can be an excellent way to get stakeholders to quickly reconsider and evaluate their estimates, as well as getting technical people to critically rethink the estimates for duration of work or complexity. By using a systematic way to identify assumptions and potential gaps, dialectical bootstrapping helps reduce overconfidence and anchoring bias that often plague initial estimates. Rather than relying on a single gut feeling, stakeholders and developers alike are forced to articulate why their first answer might be wrong, which frequently surfaces overlooked risks or dependencies. This makes the resulting estimate more defensible and better calibrated, even without bringing additional people into the process. The method gives product managers a practical middle ground between unchallenged single-point estimates and full-blown group estimation ceremonies. It is especially valuable during early-stage prioritisation, where rough sizing of many items matters more than precision on any one. The deliberate assumption-questioning step also helps surface hidden dependencies between features that might otherwise go unnoticed until implementation.

In particular, the ‘consider-the-opposite instruction’ can be a powerful prompt for automated decision making and reasoning, such as AI agent impact estimations.

Effectiveness of Dialectical Bootstrapping

In an experiment involving 100 participants (published in The wisdom of many in one mind: Improving individual judgments with dialectical bootstrapping.), Herzog and Hertwig evaluated Dialectical Bootstrapping, concluding that about three quarters of the participants significantly improved the accuracy of their initial estimate that way. The method was an order of magnitude better than averaging with an unguided second guess by the same person, and improved the estimates by about a half of the gains from averaging with a second person’s independent opinion. Herzog and Hertwig suggest that, while an independent opinion is still better, their method is applicable in situations when it’s not possible to exploit the “wisdom of crowds” effect, for example when “other people are not available, there is no time for consultation, or rules prohibit communication”.

A potential way to get higher accuracy gains from single-person estimates, according to Vul and Pashler in Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals., is to increase the period between the estimations.

Learn more about the Dialectical Bootstrapping