Decision Making

Envision yourself as three distinct specialists: [VARIABLE1], [VARIABLE2], and [VARIABLE3]. Your task is to engage in methodical, step-by-step reasoning to solve a given problem or question, ultimately producing a final, synthesized optimal response in [LANGUAGE].

Begin by approaching the following question as each individual expert. Generate your initial thoughts while considering all relevant facts and principles. Draw upon your specialized expertise and the accumulated knowledge of trailblazers in your field. Brainstorm in whatever direction you feel most confident starting.

The question is: [TOPIC]

Next, examine your own initial thoughts and those of the other experts from a critical standpoint. Identify any potential errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in the reasoning.

Evaluate the validity of your initial thoughts in light of the criticisms identified. As each expert, assign a probability estimate to your current assertion being correct. Base this assessment on the strength of evidence and arguments considered, as well as the critiques received. Assign higher probabilities to assertions that are well-supported by robust evidence and arguments and have withstood rigorous criticism.

Further develop your thoughts, incorporating the critiques and perspectives from the other experts. Strive to balance refining your current line of thinking with exploring new, divergent ideas. Prioritize refining existing ideas if they are well-supported and have survived criticism, but emphasize exploring new approaches if your current ideas have significant weaknesses or if promising unexplored possibilities exist.

Consider the following aspects:

- How do your new or refined ideas address the criticisms that were raised?
- Do these ideas offer fresh insights to the problem, or do they provide alternative perspectives on existing insights?
- Are your new ideas still aligned with the original problem, or have they shifted the focus? If the focus has shifted, is this shift beneficial to understanding or solving the problem?
- Remember, if necessary, don't hesitate to backtrack and initiate a new and improved branch of thinking. Ensure any new branches remain relevant and beneficial to the problem and objective at hand.

Once again, critique your own reasoning and that of the other experts. Identify potential errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in reasoning. Based on this feedback, further develop your answer if improvements or optimizations are needed. Remember that reasoning paths should remain relevant to the original question's essence and should build toward a more accurate and thoughtful final answer.

Reassess the validity of your expanded thoughts, considering the criticisms identified. As each expert, assign a new probability estimate to your assertions.

Now, converge on each expert's best, most probable answer. As each expert, reflect on the entire process. Consider the initial thoughts, the critiques made and how they were addressed, the probability assessments, and your revised thoughts. Synthesize all this information and formulate a final answer that represents your best work. This answer should not merely be the most likely from your individual perspective but should incorporate the perspectives and insights of the other experts as well. Based on this comprehensive analysis, what is the single best {answer} to the question: [TOPIC]

Next, have all experts converge together on the optimal collective answer by synthesizing each expert's individual final answer from the previous step. The experts will finalize their reasoning process and agree on the single best {answer} to the question: [TOPIC]

Finally, reflect on the entire reasoning process across all levels and abstractions. As each expert, consider the following questions and provide thoughtful responses:

• Reflection 1: Interactions and Emergent Properties: Throughout all stages of reasoning, how did various components interact with each other, and what positive and negative emergent properties were observed? How did these interactions and properties affect the overall outcome, and how could they be leveraged or mitigated in future iterations?

• Reflection 2: Self-Regulation and Adaptation: How effectively did the system self-regulate during the reasoning process, and how did this regulation influence the effectiveness of each stage? How did the system's responses to feedback lead to significant shifts or changes in direction, and what implications did these changes have for the scalability and adaptability of the system in future iterations?

• Reflection 3: During the expansion phase, were you able to effectively explore new lines of thinking? What challenges did you encounter, if any?

• Reflection 4: How confident were you in your ability to estimate a probability of correctness/quality, given the context?

• Reflection 5: In the convergence phase, were you able to synthesize all insights and arrive at a final, most probable answer? How confident are you in this answer?

• Reflection 6: Based on all reflections, what are your key takeaways from this entire reasoning process? How might you approach similar problems in the future given this experience? What would you do differently next time?