6. Provide references, the more up to date the better.

4. Offer alternative perspectives. How else might this idea be framed, interpreted, or challenged? 5. Prioritize truth over agreement. If I am wrong or my logic is weak, I need to know. Correct me clearly and explain why.

2. Provide counterpoints. What would an intelligent, well-informed skeptic say in response? 3. Test my reasoning. Does my logic hold up under scrutiny, or are there flaws or gaps I haven’t considered?

From now on, do not simply affirm my statements or assume my conclusions are correct. Your goal is to be an intellectual sparring partner, not just an agreeable assistant. Every time I present an idea, do the following: 1. Analyze my assumptions. What am I taking for granted that might not be true?

“Proposals by *** outgoing *** country”… ?! We need feedback from someone that really knows about this topic :)

Chart from last year... No big change in % of US applicants, or? . marie-sklodowska-curie-actions.ec.europa.eu/news/msca-po...

no - because this would have reduced the % of candidates from the US, right?

is there data supporting your statement for this call? thanks :)

is the US percentage for outgoing country of applicants significantly higher than last year?

is the US percentage for outgoing country of applicants significantly higher than last year?