When you meet someone who thinks on another level, you feel it in the way they talk. Their words invite curiosity, test assumptions and build shared understanding instead of winning points.

Psychologists call this actively open-minded or reflective speech: language that keeps the brain in “analysis” rather than “defend” mode. Studies show that people who habitually use these cues score higher on measures of critical thinking, cognitive flexibility and intellectual humility, and they make fewer reasoning errors when facts get messy.

Below are eight deceptively simple phrases that signal this high-level style—and the science behind why they work.

1. “What leads you to that conclusion?”

This classic Socratic prompt forces both speaker and listener to surface hidden assumptions.

In classrooms, leaders who ask it help colleagues slow down and inspect the logic chain instead of jumping to judgment.

Research on implicit-bias training recommends the exact wording because it nudges people to produce evidence rather than instinctive impressions, reducing snap errors.

The phrase recruits System 2 thinking—deliberate, analytical processing—giving the brain time to override fast, stereotype-driven responses. Over time, regular use strengthens metacognitive habits that underpin expert reasoning.

2. “Could there be another perspective?”

Perspective-taking relies on cognitive flexibility—the ability to switch mental frames.

A 2017 study on adolescents found that flexibility predicted how well teens interpreted irony and navigated complex social cues; the authors argue that quickly testing “other views” is the cognitive glue of healthy relationships.

By explicitly asking for alternate angles, you invite the brain’s mental set shifting function, expanding the solution space and lowering the odds of confirmation bias.

3. “Let’s examine the evidence.”

High-level thinkers habitually shift the conversation from opinions to data.

Work on actively open-minded thinking (AOT) shows that people high in AOT deliberately seek disconfirming evidence and are significantly less vulnerable to fake news or motivated reasoning.

Saying “let’s examine the evidence” moves the discussion onto shared, verifiable ground, activating analytic evaluation circuits and making reasoning transparent to everyone in the room.

4. “What am I missing?”

This line is textbook intellectual humility—an accurate sense of the limits of your own knowledge.

Duke psychologist Mark Leary highlights it as the signature question of humble thinkers who stay curious about blind spots. People high in intellectual humility spend more time searching for contradictory information and adjust beliefs more readily when faced with better data.

Admitting a potential gap reduces defensive arousal in others and turns any meeting into a co-discovery session instead of a debate.

5. “How can we test this idea?”

Great minds default to hypothesis testing. Business research on critical-thinking culture notes that innovators who routinely ask how to run a quick test generate more effective solutions and de-risk projects faster than peers who stick to discussion alone.

Why it works: The phrase shifts talk from speculation to experiment design, anchoring the group in the scientific cycle: predict → test → learn → iterate. It also combats plan continuation bias by encouraging small-scale probes before full commitment.

6. “I’m open to being wrong.”

Saying this out loud is a social cue that you value truth over ego. The same intellectual-humility studies show that people willing to declare fallibility pay more attention to new evidence, revise their views more accurately and foster climates where others feel safe to share dissenting data.

It lowers the stakes of error, turning mistakes into information.

Neurologically, that keeps the amygdala calm and frees up prefrontal resources for deeper reasoning.

7. “Can you walk me through your reasoning?”

Educational psychologists call this technique elaborative interrogation: prompting someone to explain why they think a fact or step is true.

Meta-analyses show it boosts learning and exposes hidden leaps in logic. Coaching guides on Socratic questioning list the same wording as a core tool for rigorous dialogue.

For the explainer, it triggers self-explanation, which consolidates memory and reveals shaky links. For the listener, it provides a clear map of premises, making collaboration sharper and feedback kinder.

8. “Let’s map the variables and constraints.”

Systems thinkers tackle complex problems by drawing causal-loop diagrams—visual maps of how key variables push and pull on one another.

Guides on the method recommend “map the variables” as the first collaborative step to tame messy issues.

Externalizing the moving parts reduces cognitive load and helps teams spot feedback loops, delays and unintended consequences that linear talk misses.

It’s the language of designers, strategists and policy analysts who think in wholes, not parts.

Putting it all together

None of these phrases is fancy—but that’s the point. High-level thinkers don’t show off with jargon; they steer the process of thought. Used together, the eight questions create a conversational flow:

1. Surface conclusions.

2. Seek other views.

3. Gather evidence.

4. Identify blind spots.

5. Design tests.

6. Normalize fallibility.

7. Make reasoning explicit.

8. Visualize the system.

Try weaving two or three into your next meeting or dinner debate. Over time you’ll notice a shift: fewer “gotcha” moments, more genuine insight, and a culture where changing your mind feels like progress, not defeat. That’s the hallmark of real high-level thinking—one phrase at a time.