Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

We make judgements based on our current emotions rather than objective analysis.

The first number or piece of information we hear disproportionately shapes everything that follows.

Substituting feelings for evidence to win an argument.

Using a source that sounds authoritative but isn't actually reliable or relevant as the foundation of an argument.

The assumption that something is good because it's natural, or bad because it's artificial.

We give disproportionate weight to the opinions of people we perceive as authorities - even outside their expertise.

We judge how likely something is based on how easily an example comes to mind.

When people who genuinely believe they are not prejudiced still harbour unconscious biases that shape their behaviour in subtle ways.

Correcting someone's false belief can actually make them believe it more strongly.

We're more likely to believe or do something if lots of other people already do.

We grow to like people we've done favours for, not just people who've done favours for us.

Harm that comes with a violation of trust hurts far more than the same harm without it.

Demanding that someone disprove your claim, rather than proving it yourself.

The more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one person is to help.

Knowing the boundaries of what you actually understand - and being honest about where those boundaries lie.

Using your conclusion as your premise - the argument proves itself by assuming itself.

The uncomfortable tension we feel when holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

Holding contradictory beliefs or values by keeping them in separate mental boxes that never touch.

Repeated exposure to suffering gradually reduces your capacity to care.

Pretending to be sympathetic or worried in order to undermine.

We seek out information that supports what we already believe, and ignore what doesn't.

Deny the behaviour, Attack the person who raised it, Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender.

Refusing to accept reality because it's too threatening to process.

Using coded language that sounds innocent to most people but carries a specific prejudiced message to a target audience.

The less you know about something, the more confident you're likely to feel about it.

Complex behaviours arising from simple rules, with no central plan or control.

Softening an unpleasant reality with gentler, vaguer words.

When someone behaves differently from what we expected, our emotional reaction is amplified - for better or worse.

Presenting two sides as equally valid when the evidence overwhelmingly favours one.

When someone presents only two options, even though more exist.

Treating two things as equally valid or important when they clearly aren't.

When the output of a system feeds back in as input, either amplifying or dampening the original effect.

Flooding the information space with so many lies, half-truths, and contradictions that people give up trying to figure out what's true.

Breaking a problem down to its most fundamental truths and reasoning up from there, rather than relying on analogy or convention.

The way information is presented changes how we respond to it - even when the underlying facts are identical.

When others mess up, we blame their character. When we mess up, we blame the situation.

Making someone doubt their own perception of reality.

Overwhelming someone with a flood of arguments, regardless of their accuracy, so they can't possibly respond to them all.

One positive trait colours your entire perception of a person, product, or idea.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence, ignorance, or accident.

Drawing a broad conclusion from too few examples.

After something happens, we convince ourselves we knew it all along.

The more often we hear something, the more likely we are to believe it - regardless of whether it's true.

We automatically trust people who seem like us and distrust people who don't.

Forming your own judgement before hearing what everyone else thinks.

Instead of asking how to succeed, ask how you would guarantee failure - then avoid those things.

The belief that people generally get what they deserve - that the world is fundamentally fair.

When repeated failure or lack of control teaches us to stop trying - even when things change.

Words chosen for their emotional charge rather than their accuracy.

Losses hurt roughly twice as much as equivalent gains feel good.

When media systems produce public agreement with elite interests - not through censorship, but through structure.

Every model of reality is a simplification - useful, but never the full picture.

Small, everyday slights and indignities - often unintentional - that communicate hostility or prejudice toward members of marginalised groups.

We punish the contradiction between someone's stated values and their behaviour more harshly than we punish the behaviour alone.

Doing something good gives you unconscious permission to do something bad.

Intense public fear about a perceived threat, amplified by media, disproportionate to the actual danger.

Using our intelligence not to find truth but to defend conclusions we've already reached.

Holding a controversial position but retreating to a much more defensible one when challenged - then switching back once the pressure's off.

Changing the criteria for proof after the original criteria have been met.

The belief that you see the world objectively - and that anyone who disagrees must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.

Bad experiences affect us more powerfully than equally good ones.

The assumption that because things have always been a certain way, they will continue to be.

The simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the right one.

Every choice has a hidden price: the thing you didn't choose.

The range of ideas the public considers acceptable at any given time - and how that range can be deliberately shifted.

A tolerant society that tolerates intolerance will eventually be destroyed by it.

When most people in a group privately disagree with a norm but go along with it because they assume everyone else agrees.

Assuming that because one thing followed another, the first thing caused the second.

Thinking in likelihoods rather than certainties - because almost nothing is truly yes or no.

Attributing your own feelings, motives, or behaviours to someone else.

Constructing a logical-sounding justification for a decision you actually made for emotional or self-serving reasons.

Introducing something irrelevant to divert attention from the actual issue.

Blaming a person or group for problems they didn't cause.

Endlessly demanding evidence or explanations in bad faith, disguised as polite curiosity.

Asking 'and then what?' - looking beyond the immediate consequences to what happens next.

Arguing that one step will inevitably lead to an extreme outcome, without justifying the chain of events in between.

Looking to other people's behaviour to decide what's correct.

Passing unreliable information through credible-looking channels until it appears legitimate.

The unconscious belief about whether people are fundamentally selfish or fundamentally cooperative - and how that shapes everything else you think.

Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

Continuing to invest in something because of what you've already put in, not because of what you'll get out.

We only see the winners, so we misjudge what it takes to succeed.

When prejudice is expressed not through overt hostility but through opposition to policies and positions associated with marginalised groups, framed in the language of fairness and principle.

A phrase that sounds wise but actually shuts down critical thinking.

Dismissing an argument by criticising how it's being made rather than what's being said.

When individuals acting in their own rational interest collectively destroy a shared resource.

Actions in complex systems produce outcomes nobody planned for.

Language that sounds specific but commits to nothing.

Deflecting criticism by pointing to someone else's wrongdoing instead of addressing the original point.

When a weak or unsupported claim gets cited and re-cited until it starts looking like established fact.