bias

September 30, 2025

28 Cognitive Distortions

Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. They can convince us that untrue things are true, or vice versa.

Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive — the very opposite of healthy, critical thinking.

These unhelpful ways of thinking can limit one’s ability to function and excel in the world. Cognitive distortions are linked to anxiety, depression, addiction, and eating disorders. They reinforce negative thinking loops, which tend to compound and worsen over time.

Irrational thinking: And how to counter it

Every day, our minds take shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information we encounter. These shortcuts—cognitive distortions—helped our ancestors survive in environments where quick judgments meant the difference between life and death. But in today’s complex world, where we’re making decisions about careers, relationships, investments, and strategy, these same mental patterns can systematically lead us astray.

Cognitive distortions are systematic patterns of thought that can lead to inaccurate or irrational conclusions. These distortions often serve as mental traps, skewing our perception of reality and affecting our emotional well-being.

The good news? Simply knowing these distortions (as well as other common psychological biases) exist makes you a better thinker. Research in metacognition shows that awareness is the first step toward correction. You can’t debug code you don’t know is buggy, and you can’t fix thinking patterns you can’t see.

Here’s the hard truth: everyone experiences these distortions. The difference between mediocre and exceptional decision-makers isn’t that one group never falls into these traps—it’s that they’ve trained themselves to spot the patterns, pause, and course-correct. They’ve built systems to counteract their brain’s default programming.

Types of cognitive distortion

What types of cognitive distortion should we be aware of? Let’s delve into three common types: emotional reasoning, counterfactual thinking, and catastrophizing.

Emotional Reasoning: This distortion involves using one’s emotions as a barometer for truth. For example, if you feel anxious, you might conclude that something bad is going to happen, even if there’s no objective evidence to support that belief. Emotional reasoning can create a self-perpetuating cycle: your emotions validate your distorted thoughts, which in turn intensify your emotions.
Counterfactual Thinking: This involves imagining alternative scenarios that could have occurred but didn’t. While this can be useful for problem-solving and learning, it becomes a cognitive distortion when it leads to excessive rumination and regret. For instance, thinking “If only I had done X, then Y wouldn’t have happened” can make you stuck in a loop of what-ifs, preventing you from moving forward.
Catastrophizing: This is the tendency to imagine the worst possible outcome in any given situation. It’s like always expecting a minor stumble to turn into a catastrophic fall. This distortion can lead to heightened stress and anxiety, as you’re constantly bracing for disaster.

But there are many more mental pitfalls to watch out for besides just these 3. The table below catalogues some of the most common cognitive distortions that shape (and warp) human thinking. As you read through them, you’ll likely recognize patterns from your own mental habits. That moment of recognition isn’t a weakness—it’s the beginning of cognitive sovereignty. The path to better decisions starts with knowing when your brain is trying to take shortcuts, and choosing to think deliberately instead.

Consider this your debugging toolkit for the most important software you’ll ever run: your own mind.

Cognitive distortions list

Cognitive distortion	Explanation	Example
all-or-nothing thinking	viewing everything in absolute and extremely polarized terms	“nothing good ever happens” or “I’m always behind”
blaming	focusing on other people as source of your negative feelings, & refusing to take responsibility for changing yourself; or conversely, blaming yourself harshly for things that were out of your control	“It’s my boss’s fault I’m always stressed at work, or conversely, “It’s all my fault that the project failed, even though I had no control over the budget cuts.”
catastrophizing	belief that disaster will strike no matter what, and that what will happen will be too awful to bear	If I don’t get this promotion, my life will be ruined and I’ll end up homeless.
counterfactual thinking	A kind of mental bargaining or longing to live in the alternate timeline where one had made a different decision	If only I had studied harder for that exam, I wouldn’t be in this situation now.
dichotomous thinking	viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms	“If I don’t get a perfect score on this test, then I’m a complete failure.”
discounting positives	claiming that positive things you or others do are trivial, or ignoring good things that have happened to you	“I got a promotion, but it’s not a big deal; anyone could have done it.”
emotional reasoning	letting feelings guide interpretation of reality; a way of judging yourself or your circumstances based on your emotions	“I feel like a failure, so I must be one.”
filtering	mentally “filters out” the positive aspects of a situation while magnifying the negative aspects	Even though I got a promotion and a raise, I can’t stop thinking about the one negative comment my boss made during my performance review.
fortune-telling	predicting the future negatively	I just know I’m going to fail this test, even though I’ve studied for weeks.
framing effects	tendency for decisions to be shaped by inconsequential features of choice problems	Choosing the “90% fat-free” yogurt over the “10% fat” yogurt, even though they are nutritionally identical, because the positive framing sounds healthier.
halo effect	belief that one’s success in a domain automagically qualifies them to have skills and expertise in other areas	Because someone is a successful actor, I assume they must also be a brilliant political commentator.
illusory correlation	tendency to perceive a relationship between two variables when no relation exists	Every time I wash my car, it rains, so I must be causing the rain.
inability to disconfirm	reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict negative thoughts	Despite being shown evidence of her good work, she clung to the belief that she was incompetent.
intuitive heuristics	tendency when faced with a difficult question of answering an easier question instead, typically without noticing the substitution	When asked if they are a happy person, someone might answer if they are happy right now, instead of considering their overall happiness.
just-world hypothesis	belief that good things tend to happen to good people, while bad things tend to happen to bad people	She believes that because she works hard and is a good person, she is guaranteed to win the lottery, while bad things only happen to those who deserve it.
labeling	assigning global negative traits to self & others; making a judgment about yourself or someone else as a person, versus seeing the behavior as something they did that doesn’t define them as an individual	“I’m a complete idiot for making that mistake,” instead of “I made a mistake.”
ludic fallacy	in assessing the potential amount of risk in a system or decision, mistaking the real randomness of life for the well-defined risk of casinos	A gambler believes that since a roulette wheel has landed on red five times in a row, it’s more likely to land on black next, mistaking the independent probability of each spin for a predictable pattern.
magical thinking	a way of imagining you can wish reality into existence through the sheer force of your mind. Part of a child developmental phase that not everyone grows out of.	If I just wish hard enough, I can make my dream job appear without applying for it.
magnification	exaggerating the importance of flaws and problems while minimizing the impact of desirable qualities and achievements	Even though I successfully completed the complex project, I can’t stop focusing on the minor typo I made in one email.
mind reading	assuming what someone is thinking w/o sufficient evidence; jumping to conclusions	My boss didn’t say good morning, so she must be angry with me.
negative filtering	focusing exclusively on negatives & ignoring positives	Even after receiving a glowing performance review, she could only dwell on the one minor suggestion for improvement.
nominal realism	child development phase where names of objects aren’t just symbols but intrinsic parts of the objects. Sometimes called word realism, and related to magical thinking	A child believing that if you call a dog a “cat,” it will actually become a cat, demonstrates nominal realism.
overgeneralizing	making a rule or predicting globally negative patterns on the basis of single incident	Because I tripped on the sidewalk today, I know it’s going to be a terrible week.
projection	attributing qualities to external actors or forces that one feels within and either a) wishes to promote and have echoed back to onself, or b) eradicate or squelch from oneself by believing that the quality exists elsewhere, in others, but not in oneself	He accused his coworker of being lazy, when in reality, he was struggling with his own motivation.
provincialism	the tendency to see things only from the point of view of those in charge of our immediate in-groups	She couldn’t understand why anyone would disagree with her team’s strategy, assuming their way was the only correct approach because it’s what her superiors believed.
shoulds	a list of ironclad rules one lives and punishes oneself by	“I should always be perfect, and if I’m not, I’m a complete failure.”
teleological fallacy	illusion that you know exactly where you’re going, knew exactly where you were going in the past, & that others have succeeded in the past by knowing where they were going	I always knew I would become a successful entrepreneur because every step I took, even the detours, perfectly led me to this point.
what if?	keep asking series of ?s on prospective events & being unsatisfied with any answers	What if I fail the exam, and what if that means I’ll never get into college, and what if my whole future is ruined because of this one test?

More related to cognitive distortions:

30 Common psychological biases ↗

These systematic errors in our thinking and logic affect our everyday choices, behaviors, and evaluations of others.

Top Mental Models for Thinkers ↗

Model thinking is an excellent way of improving our cognition and decision making abilities.

24 Logical fallacies list ↗

Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

September 28, 2025

Black and White Thinking

Black and white thinking is the tendency to see things in extremes, viewing the world through a very polarized lens. Even complex moral issues are seen as clearcut, with simple right and wrong answers and no gray areas in between.

Also referred to as all-or-nothing thinking or dichotomous thinking, black and white thinking is a very rigid and binary way of looking at the world. Black and white thinkers tend to categorize things, events, people, and experiences as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuance or shades of gray. This can manifest in various aspects of their lives including relationships, decision-making, and self-evaluation. Black and white thinking can be a defense mechanism, as it provides a sense of certainty and control in situations that are complex, uncertain, or anxiety-provoking.

For example, a person who engages in black and white thinking may view their work performance as either completely successful or a complete failure, without considering any middle ground. They may view themselves as either a “good” or “bad” person, based on a single action or mistake. This type of extreme thinking can lead to feelings of extreme anxiety, depression, and self-doubt, as well as difficulties in personal and professional relationships.

Black and white thinking in political psychology

Black and white thinking can also be seen in political or social contexts, where individuals categorize people or groups as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuances or complexities. This type of thinking can lead to polarizing beliefs, rigid ideologies, and an unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue or compromise.

The origins of black and white thinking are complex and multifaceted, but it can stem from a variety of factors, including childhood experiences, cultural and societal influences, and psychological disorders including personality disorder. For example, individuals who have experienced trauma or abuse may engage in black and white thinking as a way to cope with the complexity and ambiguity of their experiences. Similarly, cultural or societal influences that promote a strict adherence to binary categories can also contribute to black and white thinking.

Psychological disorders such as borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders are also associated with black and white thinking. For example, individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) may see themselves or others as either completely good or completely bad, without any middle ground. This type of thinking can lead to unstable relationships, impulsive behavior, and emotional dysregulation.

Narcissists too, especially malignant narcissists, tend to exhibit black and white thinking, with the frequent framing of any narrative as being primarily about themselves (good/The Hero) and everyone else (bad/The Other).

Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era

The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking

The modern information ecosystem has created unprecedented conditions for black and white thinking to flourish. Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, systematically promote content that evokes strong emotional responses—often content that presents complex issues in oversimplified, polarizing terms.

Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms

Contemporary digital platforms operate on engagement metrics that inadvertently reward binary thinking:

Filter Bubble Formation: Recommendation algorithms create echo chambers where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs
Engagement Optimization: Content that provokes outrage or strong agreement receives higher distribution (and ultimately, revenue), marginalizing nuanced perspectives
Attention Economy Dynamics: The competition for limited attention spans incentivizes simplified, emotionally charged messaging over complex analysis — going straight for the jugular of common mental heuristics works

Information Processing Under Cognitive Load

Research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that when individuals experience high cognitive load—a common state in our information-saturated environment—they default to simplified decision-making heuristics. This neurological tendency combines with digital information delivery systems to create systematic biases toward binary categorization.

Contemporary Political Manifestations

Black and white thinking has become increasingly prominent in political discourse, with profound implications for democratic institutions and social cohesion.

Institutional Polarization Patterns

Recent decades have witnessed unprecedented levels of political polarization across multiple institutional domains:

Legislative Dynamics: Congressional voting patterns show dramatic increases in party-line voting, with bipartisan legislation becoming increasingly rare. This reflects not just strategic positioning but fundamental shifts in how political actors conceptualize policy problems and solutions.

Media Ecosystem Fragmentation: The proliferation of ideologically aligned media sources enables individuals to construct information diets that reinforce binary worldviews. Traditional journalistic ethics of objectivity and balance in a fundamentally evidentiary role have been challenged by partisan media models that explicitly advocate for particular political perspectives.

Electoral Coalition Building: Political campaigns increasingly rely on mobilizing base supporters through appeals to fundamental differences with opponents, rather than building broad coalitions through compromise and incremental policy development.

Identity-Based Political Cognition

Modern political psychology research reveals how black and white thinking intersects with identity formation:

Social Identity Theory: Individuals derive significant psychological satisfaction from in-group membership and out-group differentiation
Motivated Reasoning: People process political information in ways that protect their group identities and existing belief systems
Moral Foundations: Different political coalitions emphasize different moral frameworks, creating seemingly irreconcilable worldview differences

Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts

Black and white thinking creates cascade effects across multiple institutional systems:

Democratic Governance Challenges

Compromise Mechanisms: Effective democratic governance requires negotiation and compromise between competing interests. Binary thinking undermines these processes by framing compromise as betrayal of fundamental principles.

Policy Implementation: Complex policy challenges—from healthcare to climate change to economic inequality—require nuanced, multifaceted solutions. Binary thinking promotes oversimplified policy approaches that often fail to address underlying systemic issues.

Constitutional Design: Democratic institutions assume citizens capable of evaluating competing claims and making informed choices. Black and white thinking can undermine these foundational assumptions necessary to making democracy work.

Economic System Implications

Market Dynamics: Binary thinking in economic contexts can create boom-bust cycles, as investors and consumers oscillate between extreme optimism and pessimism without recognizing gradual trends and mixed signals.

Innovation Ecosystems: Complex technological and business model innovation requires tolerance for ambiguity and iterative development. Binary thinking can stifle innovation by demanding immediate, clear success metrics. It turns out that diversity is good to the bottom line, actually.

Labor Relations: Effective workplace dynamics require ongoing negotiation between competing interests. Binary thinking can transform routine workplace disagreements into fundamental conflicts.

Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis

Understanding black and white thinking requires sophisticated analytical frameworks:

The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model

Black and white thinking rarely operates in isolation but typically forms part of broader cognitive bias patterns:

Confirmation Bias: Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs
Availability Heuristic: Overweighting easily recalled examples
Fundamental Attribution Error: Attributing others’ behavior to character rather than circumstances
Group Attribution Error: Assuming individual group members represent entire groups

Systems Thinking Applications

Effective analysis of black and white thinking requires systems-level perspective:

Feedback Loops: How binary thinking creates self-reinforcing cycles that become increasingly difficult to break

Emergence Properties: How individual cognitive patterns create collective social and political dynamics

Leverage Points: Identifying where interventions might most effectively disrupt binary thinking patterns

Historical Pattern Recognition

Historical analysis reveals recurring patterns in how societies navigate between binary and nuanced thinking:

Crisis Periods: Times of social stress typically increase binary thinking as individuals seek certainty and clear action frameworks

Institutional Adaptation: How democratic institutions evolve mechanisms to manage polarization and maintain governance capacity

Cultural Evolution: How societies develop norms and practices that promote or discourage binary thinking

Contemporary Case Studies

Social Media Discourse Patterns

Analysis of millions of social media posts reveals systematic patterns in how binary thinking spreads:

Viral Content Characteristics: Posts that go viral disproportionately feature binary framing of complex issues
Engagement Metrics: Binary content generates higher levels of shares, comments, and emotional reactions
Network Effects: Binary thinking spreads through social networks more rapidly than nuanced analysis

Political Movement Dynamics

Examination of contemporary political movements reveals how binary thinking shapes organizational development:

Movement Mobilization: Binary framing helps movements build initial coalition support by clarifying friend-enemy distinctions

Strategic Communication: Binary messaging dominates political advertising and fundraising appeals

Coalition Maintenance: Binary thinking can help maintain group cohesion but may limit strategic flexibility

black and white thinking as a tool of dictators around the world

Crisis Response Patterns

Analysis of responses to major crises—from pandemics to economic disruptions to international conflicts—demonstrates how binary thinking affects collective decision-making:

Policy Development: Crisis conditions often promote binary policy choices that may not address underlying complexity

Public Communication: Crisis communication frequently relies on binary framing to motivate public compliance with policy measures

International Relations: Crisis situations can push diplomatic relations toward binary alliance structures

Neurological and Psychological Foundations

Understanding black and white thinking requires examining its neurological and psychological foundations:

Cognitive Processing Systems

System 1 vs System 2 Thinking: Daniel Kahneman’s research demonstrates how automatic, intuitive thinking (System 1) tends toward binary categorization, while deliberative thinking (System 2) enables more nuanced analysis.

Threat Detection Mechanisms: Evolutionary psychology suggests that binary thinking may have adaptive advantages in environments requiring quick threat assessment, but becomes maladaptive in complex modern contexts.

Cognitive Load Theory: When individuals experience high cognitive load, they default to simplified decision-making processes that favor binary categorization.

Developmental Psychology Perspectives

Moral Development Stages: Lawrence Kohlberg’s research on moral development shows how individuals progress from binary moral thinking toward more sophisticated ethical reasoning frameworks.

Identity Formation: Erik Erikson’s work on identity development demonstrates how binary thinking can serve important functions during identity formation periods but may become problematic if it persists into adulthood.

Attachment Theory: Insecure attachment patterns can promote binary thinking about relationships and social situations as defensive mechanisms.

Organizational and Institutional Responses

Educational System Adaptations

Educational institutions increasingly recognize the need to develop students’ capacity for nuanced thinking:

Critical Thinking Curricula: Programs specifically designed to help students recognize and resist binary thinking patterns

Media Literacy: Training students to recognize how information systems promote simplified thinking

Interdisciplinary Approaches: Educational approaches that demonstrate how complex problems require multiple perspectives and methodological approaches

Democratic Institution Reforms

Various proposals aim to reduce the institutional incentives for binary thinking:

Electoral System Design: Ranked-choice voting and other electoral innovations that reward coalition-building over polarization

Deliberative Democracy: Institutional mechanisms that bring citizens together for structured discussion of complex policy issues

Legislative Process Reform: Procedural changes that incentivize negotiation and compromise over partisan positioning

Technology Platform Governance

Growing recognition of how digital platforms shape thinking patterns has led to various reform proposals:

Algorithm Transparency: Requiring platforms to disclose how their algorithms prioritize content

Engagement Metric Alternatives: Developing metrics beyond simple engagement that reward constructive discourse

Digital Literacy: Public education initiatives to help users recognize and resist algorithmic manipulation

Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking

Individual-Level Interventions

Mindfulness Practices: Regular mindfulness meditation has been shown to increase tolerance for ambiguity and reduce automatic binary categorization.

Cognitive Behavioral Techniques: Specific therapeutic approaches for identifying and challenging binary thought patterns.

Exposure to Complexity: Deliberately seeking out information sources and experiences that present complex, nuanced perspectives on important issues.

Perspective-Taking Exercises: Structured practices for understanding how situations appear from multiple viewpoints.

Community-Level Initiatives

Dialogue and Deliberation Programs: Community-based initiatives that bring together people with different perspectives for structured conversation about local issues.

Collaborative Problem-Solving: Community projects that require cooperation across different groups and perspectives.

Civic Education: Educational programs that help citizens understand how democratic institutions work and why compromise is essential for effective governance.

Cross-Cutting Social Connections: Initiatives that help people form relationships across traditional dividing lines.

Institutional Design Principles

Procedural Safeguards: Institutional mechanisms that slow down decision-making processes to allow for more deliberative consideration of complex issues.

Stakeholder Inclusion: Decision-making processes that systematically include multiple perspectives and interests.

Transparency and Accountability: Mechanisms that make decision-making processes visible and subject to public scrutiny.

Adaptive Management: Institutional frameworks that allow for policy adjustment based on evidence and changing circumstances.

Implications for Democratic Resilience

The prevalence of black and white thinking poses significant challenges for democratic governance:

Representation and Legitimacy

Electoral Representation: Binary thinking can undermine representative democracy by making it difficult for elected officials to represent diverse constituencies with complex, sometimes conflicting interests.

Institutional Legitimacy: When citizens view political institutions through binary lenses, it becomes difficult to maintain the shared commitment to democratic norms necessary for effective governance.

Minority Rights: Binary thinking can threaten minority rights by reducing complex questions of individual liberty and collective welfare to simple majority-minority power dynamics.

Policy Development and Implementation

Evidence-Based Policy: Effective policy development requires careful consideration of evidence, trade-offs, and unintended consequences—all of which are undermined by binary thinking.

Policy Adaptation: Democratic institutions must be able to adapt policies based on new evidence and changing circumstances, which requires tolerance for complexity and ambiguity.

Cross-Sector Coordination: Modern policy challenges often require coordination across different levels of government and between public and private sectors, which is complicated by binary thinking.

Future Research Directions

Understanding and addressing black and white thinking requires ongoing research across multiple disciplines:

Technology and Cognition

AI and Decision-Making: How artificial intelligence systems might be designed to promote nuanced rather than binary thinking.

Digital Environment Design: Research on how different digital interface designs affect cognitive processing and decision-making.

Virtual Reality and Perspective-Taking: How immersive technologies might be used to help individuals understand complex situations from multiple perspectives.

Political Psychology and Behavior

Motivation and Binary Thinking: Research on what motivates individuals to adopt or resist binary thinking patterns in political contexts.

Group Dynamics: How binary thinking spreads through social networks and political organizations.

Leadership and Framing: How political leaders can effectively communicate about complex issues without resorting to binary framing.

Institutional Design and Reform

Comparative Democratic Systems: Analysis of how different democratic institutions manage polarization and promote constructive political discourse.

Experimental Governance: Small-scale experiments with different institutional designs that might reduce incentives for binary thinking.

Technology Governance: Research on how to regulate digital platforms in ways that promote constructive rather than polarizing discourse.

Toward cognitive complexity

Black and white thinking represents a fundamental challenge to effective individual decision-making, social cooperation, and democratic governance. While binary thinking may have served adaptive functions in simpler environments, the complexity of modern challenges requires more sophisticated cognitive frameworks.

Addressing this challenge requires coordinated efforts across multiple levels—from individual practices that promote cognitive flexibility to institutional reforms that reduce incentives for polarization. The stakes are particularly high for democratic societies, which depend on citizens’ capacity to engage constructively with complexity and difference.

The path forward requires neither naive optimism nor cynical resignation, but rather sustained commitment to developing our collective capacity for nuanced thinking about complex problems. This involves both protecting democratic institutions from the corrosive effects of extreme polarization and actively building new capabilities for constructive engagement across difference — knowing that some will disagree and continuously fight us on reforms.

Understanding black and white thinking is not merely an academic exercise but an urgent practical necessity for navigating the challenges of the 21st century. By developing more sophisticated analytical frameworks and practical interventions, we can work toward societies that are both more thoughtful and more effective at solving complex collective problems.

Origins and development

Cultivation theory emerged from broader concerns about the effects of television on viewers over long periods. To study those effects, George Gerbner, along with his colleagues at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, initiated the Cultural Indicators Project in the mid-1960s.

This large-scale research project aimed to study how television content affected viewers’ perceptions of reality. Gerbner’s research focused particularly on the cumulative and overarching impact of television as a medium rather than the effects of specific programs.

Core components of cultivation theory

The central hypothesis of cultivation theory is that those who spend more time watching television are more likely to perceive the real world in ways that reflect the most common and recurrent messages of the television world, compared to those who watch less television. This effect is termed ‘cultivation.’

1. Message System Analysis: This involves the study of content on television to understand the recurring and dominant messages and images presented.

2. Cultivation Analysis: This refers to research that examines the long-term effects of television. The focus is on the viewers’ conceptions of reality and whether these conceptions correlate with the world portrayed on television.

3. Mainstreaming and Resonance: Mainstreaming is the homogenization of viewers’ perceptions as television’s ubiquitous narratives become the dominant source of information and reality. Resonance occurs when viewers’ real-life experiences confirm the mediated reality, intensifying the cultivation effect.

Psychological mechanisms

Cultivation theory suggests several psychological processes that explain how media exposure shapes perceptions:

Heuristic Processing: Television can lead to heuristic processing, a kind of psychological biasing where viewers use shortcuts in thinking to quickly assess reality based on the most frequently presented images and themes in media.
Social Desirability: Television often portrays certain behaviors and lifestyles as more desirable or acceptable, which can influence viewers to adopt these standards as their own.
The Mean World Syndrome: A significant finding from cultivation research is that heavy viewers of television tend to believe that the world is a more dangerous place than it actually is, a phenomenon known as the “mean world syndrome.” This is particularly pronounced in genres rich in violence, like crime dramas and news.

Critiques and modern perspectives

Cultivation theory has faced various critiques and adaptations over the years. Critics argue that the theory underestimates viewer agency and the role of individual differences in media consumption. It is also said to lack specificity regarding how different genres of television might affect viewers differently.

Furthermore, with the advent of digital media, the theory’s focus on television as the sole medium of significant influence has been called into question. Modern adaptations of cultivation theory have begun to consider the effects of internet usage, social media, and platform-based viewing, which also offer repetitive and pervasive content capable of shaping perceptions.

Application to modern media

Today, cultivation theory is still relevant as it can be applied to the broader media landscape, including online platforms where algorithms dictate the content viewers receive repetitively. For example, the way social media can affect users’ perceptions of body image, social norms, or even political ideologies often mirrors the longstanding concepts of cultivation theory.

In conclusion, cultivation theory provides a critical framework for understanding the psychological impacts of media on public perceptions and individual worldviews. While originally developed in the context of television, its core principles are increasingly applicable to various forms of media, offering valuable insights into the complex interplay between media content, psychological processes, and the cultivation of perception in the digital age.

April 19, 2024

Confirmation loop

The concept of a “confirmation loop” in psychology is a critical element to understand in the contexts of media literacy, disinformation, and political ideologies. It operates on the basic human tendency to seek out, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, known as confirmation bias. This bias is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning that affects the decisions and judgments that people make.

Understanding the confirmation loop

A confirmation loop occurs when confirmation bias is reinforced in a cyclical manner, often exacerbated by the selective exposure to information that aligns with one’s existing beliefs. In the digital age, this is particularly prevalent due to the echo chambers created by online social networks and personalized content algorithms.

These technologies tend to present us with information that aligns with our existing views, thus creating a loop where our beliefs are constantly confirmed, and alternative viewpoints are rarely encountered. This can solidify and deepen convictions, making individuals more susceptible to disinformation and conspiracy theories, and less tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

Media literacy and disinformation

Media literacy is the ability to identify different types of media and understand the messages they’re sending. It’s crucial in breaking the confirmation loop as it involves critically evaluating sources of information, their purposes, and their impacts on our thoughts and beliefs.

With the rise of digital media, individuals are bombarded with an overwhelming amount of information, making it challenging to distinguish between credible information and disinformation. It is paramount to find your own set of credible sources, and verify the ethics and integrity of new sources you come across.

Disinformation, or false information deliberately spread to deceive people, thrives in an environment where confirmation loops are strong. Individuals trapped in confirmation loops are more likely to accept information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs without scrutinizing its credibility. This makes disinformation a powerful tool in manipulating public opinion, especially in politically charged environments.

Political ideologies

The impact of confirmation loops on political ideologies cannot be overstated. Political beliefs are deeply held and can significantly influence how information is perceived and processed.

When individuals only consume media that aligns with their political beliefs, they’re in a confirmation loop that can reinforce partisan views and deepen divides. This is particularly concerning in democratic societies where informed and diverse opinions are essential for healthy political discourse.

Operation of the confirmation loop

The operation of the confirmation loop can be seen in various everyday situations. For instance, a person might exclusively watch news channels that reflect their political leanings, follow like-minded individuals on social media, and participate in online forums that share their viewpoints.

Algorithms on many platforms like Facebook and Twitter (X) detect these preferences and continue to feed similar content, thus reinforcing the loop. Over time, this can result in a narrowed perspective, where alternative viewpoints are not just ignored but may also be actively discredited or mocked.

Becoming more aware and breaking the loop

Becoming more aware of confirmation loops and working to break them is essential for fostering open-mindedness and reducing susceptibility to disinformation. Here are several strategies to achieve this:

Diversify Information Sources: Actively seek out and engage with credible sources of information that offer differing viewpoints. This can help broaden your perspective and challenge your preconceived notions.
Critical Thinking: Develop critical thinking skills to analyze and question the information you encounter. Look for evidence, check sources, and consider the purpose and potential biases behind the information.
Media Literacy Education: Invest time in learning about media literacy. Understanding how media is created, its various forms, and its impact can help you navigate information more effectively.
Reflect on Biases: Regularly reflect on your own biases and consider how they might be affecting your interpretation of information. Self-awareness is a crucial step in mitigating the impact of confirmation loops.
Engage in Constructive Dialogue: Engage in respectful and constructive dialogues with individuals who hold different viewpoints. This can expose you to new perspectives and reduce the polarization exacerbated by confirmation loops.

The confirmation loop is a powerful psychological phenomenon that plays a significant role in shaping our beliefs and perceptions, especially in the context of media literacy, disinformation, and political ideologies. By understanding how it operates and actively working to mitigate its effects, individuals can become more informed, open-minded, and resilient against disinformation.

The path toward breaking the confirmation loop involves a conscious effort to engage with diverse information sources, practice critical thinking, and foster an environment of open and respectful discourse.

April 17, 2024

Fact-checking

Fact-checking is a critical process used in journalism to verify the factual accuracy of information before it’s published or broadcast. This practice is key to maintaining the credibility and ethical standards of journalism and media as reliable information sources. It involves checking statements, claims, and data in various media forms for accuracy and context.

Ethical standards in fact-checking

The ethical backbone of fact-checking lies in journalistic integrity, emphasizing accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. Accuracy ensures information is cross-checked with credible sources. Fairness mandates balanced presentation, and impartiality requires fact-checkers to remain as unbiased in their evaluations as humanly possible.

To evaluate a media source’s credibility, look for a masthead, mission statement, about page, or ethics statement that explains the publication’s approach to journalism. Without a stated commitment to journalistic ethics and standards, it’s entirely possible the website or outlet is publishing opinion and/or unverified claims.

Fact-checking in the U.S.: A historical perspective

Fact-checking in the U.S. has evolved alongside journalism. The rise of investigative journalism in the early 20th century highlighted the need for thorough research and factual accuracy. However, recent developments in digital and social media have introduced significant challenges.

Challenges from disinformation and propaganda

The digital era has seen an explosion of disinformation and propaganda, particularly on social media. ‘Fake news‘, a term now synonymous with fabricated or distorted stories, poses a significant hurdle for fact-checkers. The difficulty lies not only in the volume of information but also in the sophisticated methods used to spread falsehoods, such as deepfakes and doctored media.

Bias and trust issues in fact-checking

The subjectivity of fact-checkers has been scrutinized, with some suggesting that personal or organizational biases might influence their work. This perception has led to a trust deficit in certain circles, where fact-checking itself is viewed as potentially politically or ideologically motivated.

Despite challenges, fact-checking remains crucial for journalism. Future efforts may involve leveraging technology like AI for assistance, though human judgment is still essential. The ongoing battle against disinformation will require innovation, collaboration with tech platforms, transparency in the fact-checking process, and public education in media literacy.

Fact-checking stands as a vital element of journalistic integrity and a bulwark against disinformation and propaganda. In the U.S., and globally, the commitment to factual accuracy is fundamental for a functioning democracy and an informed society. Upholding these standards helps protect the credibility of the media and trusted authorities, and supports the fundamental role of journalism in maintaining an informed public and a healthy democracy.

April 11, 2024

Cherry-picking

The concept of cherry-picking refers to the practice of selectively choosing data or facts that support one’s argument while ignoring those that may contradict it. This method is widely recognized not just as a logical fallacy but also as a technique commonly employed in the dissemination of disinformation. Cherry-picking can significantly impact the way information is understood and can influence political ideology, public opinion, and policy making.

Cherry-picking and disinformation

Disinformation, broadly defined, is false or misleading information that is spread deliberately, often to deceive or mislead the public. Cherry-picking plays a crucial role in the creation and propagation of disinformation.

By focusing only on certain pieces of evidence while excluding others, individuals or entities can create a skewed or entirely false narrative. This manipulation of facts is particularly effective because the information presented can be entirely true in isolation, making the deceit harder to detect. In the realm of disinformation, cherry-picking is a tool to shape perceptions, create false equivalencies, and undermine credible sources of information.

The role of cherry-picking in political ideology

Political ideologies are comprehensive sets of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work. Cherry-picking can significantly influence political ideologies by providing a biased view of facts that aligns with specific beliefs or policies.

This biased information can reinforce existing beliefs, creating echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to viewpoints similar to their own. The practice can deepen political divisions, making it more challenging for individuals with differing viewpoints to find common ground or engage in constructive dialogue.

Counteracting cherry-picking

Identifying and countering cherry-picking requires a critical approach to information consumption and sharing. Here are several strategies:

Diversify Information Sources: One of the most effective ways to recognize cherry-picking is by consuming information from a wide range of sources. This diversity of trustworthy sources helps in comparing different viewpoints and identifying when certain facts are being omitted or overly emphasized.
Fact-Checking and Research: Before accepting or sharing information, it’s essential to verify the facts. Use reputable fact-checking organizations and consult multiple sources to get a fuller picture of the issue at hand.
Critical Thinking: Develop the habit of critically assessing the information you come across. Ask yourself whether the evidence supports the conclusion, what might be missing, and whether the sources are credible.
Educate About Logical Fallacies: Understanding and educating others about logical fallacies, like cherry-picking, can help people recognize when they’re being manipulated. This knowledge can foster healthier public discourse and empower individuals to demand more from their information sources.
Promote Media Literacy: Advocating for media literacy education can equip people with the skills needed to critically evaluate information sources, understand media messages, and recognize bias and manipulation, including cherry-picking.
Encourage Open Dialogue: Encouraging open, respectful dialogue between individuals with differing viewpoints can help combat the effects of cherry-picking. By engaging in conversations that consider multiple perspectives, individuals can bridge the gap between divergent ideologies and find common ground.
Support Transparent Reporting: Advocating for and supporting media outlets that prioritize transparency, accountability, and comprehensive reporting can help reduce the impact of cherry-picking. Encourage media consumers to support organizations that make their sources and methodologies clear.

Cherry-picking is a powerful tool in the dissemination of disinformation and in shaping political ideologies. Its ability to subtly manipulate perceptions makes it a significant challenge to open, informed public discourse.

By promoting critical thinking, media literacy, and the consumption of a diverse range of information, individuals can become more adept at identifying and countering cherry-picked information. The fight against disinformation and the promotion of a well-informed public require vigilance, education, and a commitment to truth and transparency.

March 24, 2024

Source amnesia

“Source amnesia” is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when an individual can remember information but cannot recall where the information came from. In the context of media and disinformation, source amnesia plays a crucial role in how misinformation spreads and becomes entrenched in people’s beliefs. This overview will delve into the nature of source amnesia, its implications for media consumption, and strategies for addressing it.

Understanding source amnesia

Source amnesia is part of the broader category of memory errors where the content of a memory is dissociated from its source. This dissociation can lead to a situation where individuals accept information as true without remembering or critically evaluating where they learned it. The human brain tends to remember facts or narratives more readily than it does the context or source of those facts, especially if the information aligns with pre-existing beliefs or emotions. This bias can lead to the uncritical acceptance of misinformation if the original source was unreliable but the content is memorable.

Source amnesia in the media landscape

The role of source amnesia in media consumption has become increasingly significant in the digital age. The vast amount of information available online and the speed at which it spreads mean that individuals are often exposed to news, facts, and narratives from myriad sources, many of which might be dubious or outright false. Social media platforms, in particular, exacerbate this problem by presenting information in a context where source credibility is often obscured or secondary to engagement.

Disinformation campaigns deliberately exploit source amnesia. They spread misleading or false information, knowing that once the information is detached from its dubious origins, it is more likely to be believed and shared. This effect is amplified by confirmation bias, where individuals are more likely to remember and agree with information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, regardless of the source’s credibility.

Implications of source amnesia

The implications of source amnesia in the context of media and disinformation are profound. It can lead to the widespread acceptance of false narratives, undermining public discourse and trust in legitimate information sources. Elections, public health initiatives, and social cohesion can be adversely affected when disinformation is accepted as truth due to source amnesia.

The phenomenon also poses challenges for fact-checkers and educators, as debunking misinformation requires not just presenting the facts but also overcoming the emotional resonance and simplicity of the original, misleading narratives.

Addressing source amnesia

Combating source amnesia and its implications for disinformation requires a multi-pronged approach, focusing on education, media literacy, and critical thinking. Here are some strategies:

Media Literacy Education: Teaching people to critically evaluate sources and the context of the information they consume can help mitigate source amnesia. This includes understanding the bias and reliability of different media outlets, recognizing the hallmarks of credible journalism, and checking multiple sources before accepting information as true.
Critical Thinking Skills: Encouraging critical thinking can help individuals question the information they encounter, making them less likely to accept it uncritically. This involves skepticism about information that aligns too neatly with pre-existing beliefs or seems designed to elicit an emotional response.
Source Citing: Encouraging the practice of citing sources in media reports and social media posts can help readers trace the origin of information. This practice can aid in evaluating the credibility of the information and combat the spread of disinformation.
Digital Platforms’ Responsibility: Social media platforms and search engines play a crucial role in addressing source amnesia by improving algorithms to prioritize reliable sources and by providing clear indicators of source credibility. These platforms can also implement features that encourage users to evaluate the source before sharing information.
Public Awareness Campaigns: Governments and NGOs can run public awareness campaigns highlighting the importance of source evaluation. These campaigns can include guidelines for identifying credible sources and the risks of spreading unverified information.

Source amnesia is a significant challenge in the fight against disinformation, making it easy for false narratives to spread unchecked. By understanding this phenomenon and implementing strategies to address it, society can better safeguard against the corrosive effects of misinformation.

It requires a concerted effort from individuals, educators, media outlets, and digital platforms to ensure that the public remains informed and critical in their consumption of information. This collective action can foster a more informed public, resilient against the pitfalls of source amnesia and the spread of disinformation.

March 19, 2024

Backfire effect

The backfire effect is a cognitive phenomenon that occurs when individuals are presented with information that contradicts their existing beliefs, leading them not only to reject the challenging information but also to further entrench themselves in their original beliefs.

This effect is counterintuitive, as one might expect that presenting factual information would correct misconceptions. However, due to various psychological mechanisms, the opposite can occur, complicating efforts to counter misinformation, disinformation, and the spread of conspiracy theories.

Origin and mechanism

The term “backfire effect” was popularized by researchers Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, who in 2010 conducted studies demonstrating that corrections to false political information could actually deepen an individual’s commitment to their initial misconception. This effect is thought to stem from a combination of cognitive dissonance (the discomfort experienced when holding two conflicting beliefs) and identity-protective cognition (wherein individuals process information in a way that protects their sense of identity and group belonging).

Relation to media, disinformation, echo chambers, and media bubbles

In the context of media and disinformation, the backfire effect is particularly relevant. The proliferation of digital media platforms has made it easier than ever for individuals to encounter information that contradicts their beliefs — but paradoxically, it has also made it easier for them to insulate themselves in echo chambers and media bubbles—environments where their existing beliefs are constantly reinforced and rarely challenged.

Echo chambers refer to situations where individuals are exposed only to opinions and information that reinforce their existing beliefs, limiting their exposure to diverse perspectives. Media bubbles are similar, often facilitated by algorithms on social media platforms that curate content to match users’ interests and past behaviors, inadvertently reinforcing their existing beliefs and psychological biases.

Disinformation campaigns can exploit these dynamics by deliberately spreading misleading or false information, knowing that it is likely to be uncritically accepted and amplified within certain echo chambers or media bubbles. This can exacerbate the backfire effect, as attempts to correct the misinformation can lead to individuals further entrenching themselves in the false beliefs, especially if those beliefs are tied to their identity or worldview.

How the backfire effect happens

The backfire effect happens through a few key psychological processes:

Cognitive Dissonance: When confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, individuals experience discomfort. To alleviate this discomfort, they often reject the new information in favor of their pre-existing beliefs.
Confirmation Bias: Individuals tend to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs and disregard information that contradicts them. This tendency towards bias can lead them to misinterpret or dismiss corrective information.
Identity Defense: For many, beliefs are tied to their identity and social groups. Challenging these beliefs can feel like a personal attack, leading individuals to double down on their beliefs as a form of identity defense.

Prevention and mitigation

Preventing the backfire effect and its impact on public discourse and belief systems requires a multifaceted approach:

Promote Media Literacy: Educating the public on how to critically evaluate sources and understand the mechanisms behind the spread of misinformation can empower individuals to think critically and assess the information they encounter.
Encourage Exposure to Diverse Viewpoints: Breaking out of media bubbles and echo chambers by intentionally seeking out and engaging with a variety of perspectives can reduce the likelihood of the backfire effect by making conflicting information less threatening and more normal.
Emphasize Shared Values: Framing challenging information in the context of shared values or goals can make it less threatening to an individual’s identity, reducing the defensive reaction.
Use Fact-Checking and Corrections Carefully: Presenting corrections in a way that is non-confrontational and, when possible, aligns with the individual’s worldview or values can make the correction more acceptable. Visual aids and narratives that resonate with the individual’s experiences or beliefs can also be more effective than plain factual corrections.
Foster Open Dialogue: Encouraging open, respectful conversations about contentious issues can help to humanize opposing viewpoints and reduce the instinctive defensive reactions to conflicting information.

The backfire effect presents a significant challenge in the fight against misinformation and disinformation, particularly in the context of digital media. Understanding the psychological underpinnings of this effect is crucial for developing strategies to promote a more informed and less polarized public discourse. By fostering critical thinking, encouraging exposure to diverse viewpoints, and promoting respectful dialogue, it may be possible to mitigate the impact of the backfire effect and create a healthier information ecosystem.

March 12, 2024

Wallpaper effect

The “wallpaper effect” is a phenomenon in media, propaganda, and disinformation where individuals become influenced or even indoctrinated by being continuously exposed to a particular set of ideas, perspectives, or ideologies. This effect is akin to wallpaper in a room, which, though initially noticeable, becomes part of the unnoticed background over time.

The wallpaper effect plays a significant role in shaping public opinion and individual beliefs, often without the conscious awareness of the individuals affected.

Origins and mechanisms

The term “wallpaper effect” stems from the idea that constant exposure to a specific type of media or messaging can subconsciously influence an individual’s perception and beliefs, similar to how wallpaper in a room becomes a subtle but constant presence. This effect is potentiated by the human tendency to seek information that aligns with existing beliefs, known as confirmation bias. It leads to a situation where diverse viewpoints are overlooked, and a singular perspective dominates an individual’s information landscape.

Media and information bubbles

In the context of media, the wallpaper effect is exacerbated by the formation of information bubbles or echo chambers. These are environments where a person is exposed only to opinions and information that reinforce their existing beliefs.

The rise of digital media and personalized content algorithms has intensified this effect, as users often receive news and information tailored to their preferences, further entrenching their existing viewpoints. Even more insidiously, social media platforms tend to earn higher profits when they fill users’ feeds with ideological perspectives they already agree with. Even more profitable is the process of tilting them towards more extreme versions of those beliefs — a practice that in other contexts we call “radicalization.”

Role in propaganda and disinformation

The wallpaper effect is a critical tool in propaganda and disinformation campaigns. By consistently presenting a specific narrative or viewpoint, these campaigns can subtly alter the perceptions and beliefs of the target audience. Over time, the repeated exposure to these biased or false narratives becomes a backdrop to the individual’s understanding of events, issues, or groups, often leading to misconceptions or unwarranted biases.

Psychological impact

The psychological impact of the wallpaper effect is profound. It can lead to a narrowing of perspective, where individuals become less open to new information or alternative viewpoints. This effect can foster polarized communities and hyper partisan politics, where dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints become increasingly difficult.

Case studies and examples

Historically, authoritarian regimes have used the wallpaper effect to control public opinion and suppress dissent. By monopolizing the media landscape and continuously broadcasting their propaganda, these regimes effectively shaped the public’s perception of reality.

In contemporary times, this effect is also seen in democracies, where partisan news outlets or social media algorithms create a similar, though more fragmented, landscape of information bubbles.

Counteracting the wallpaper effect

Counteracting the wallpaper effect involves a multifaceted approach. Media literacy education is crucial, as it empowers individuals to critically analyze and understand the sources and content of information they consume.

Encouraging exposure to a wide range of viewpoints and promoting critical thinking skills are also essential strategies. Additionally, reforms in digital media algorithms to promote diverse viewpoints and reduce the creation of echo chambers can help mitigate this effect.

Implications for democracy and society

The wallpaper effect has significant implications for democracy and society. It can lead to a polarized public, where consensus and compromise become challenging to achieve. The narrowing of perspective and entrenchment of beliefs can undermine democratic discourse, leading to increased societal divisions and decreased trust in media and institutions.

The wallpaper effect is a critical phenomenon that shapes public opinion and belief systems. Its influence is subtle yet profound, as constant exposure to a specific set of ideas can subconsciously mold an individual’s worldview. Understanding and addressing this effect is essential in promoting a healthy, informed, and open society. Efforts to enhance media literacy, promote diverse viewpoints, and reform digital media practices are key to mitigating the wallpaper effect and fostering a more informed and less polarized public.

January 21, 2024

Repetition effect

The “repetition effect” is a potent psychological phenomenon and a common propaganda device. This technique operates on the principle that repeated exposure to a specific message or idea increases the likelihood of its acceptance as truth or normalcy by an individual or the public. Its effectiveness lies in its simplicity and its exploitation of a basic human cognitive bias: the more we hear something, the more likely we are to believe it.

Historical context

The repetition effect has been used throughout history, but its most notorious use was by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany. Hitler, along with his Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, effectively employed this technique to disseminate Nazi ideology and promote antisemitism. In his autobiography “Mein Kampf,” Hitler wrote about the importance of repetition in reinforcing the message and ensuring that it reached the widest possible audience. He believed that the constant repetition of a lie would eventually be accepted as truth.

Goebbels echoed this sentiment, famously stating, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” The Nazi regime used this strategy in various forms, including in speeches, posters, films, and through controlled media. The relentless repetition of anti-Semitic propaganda, the glorification of the Aryan race, and the demonization of enemies played a crucial role in the establishment and maintenance of the Nazi regime.

Psychological basis

The effectiveness of the repetition effect is rooted in cognitive psychology. This bias is known as the “illusory truth effect,” where repeated exposure to a statement increases its perceived truthfulness. The phenomenon is tied to the ease with which familiar information is processed. When we hear something repeatedly, it becomes more fluent to process, and our brains misinterpret this fluency as a signal for truth.

Modern era usage

The transition into the modern era saw the repetition effect adapting to new media and communication technologies. In the age of television and radio, political figures and advertisers used repetition to embed messages in the public consciousness. The rise of the internet and social media has further amplified the impact of this technique. In the digital age, the speed and reach of information are unprecedented, making it easier for false information to be spread and for the repetition effect to be exploited on a global scale.

The repetition effect on screens and social media, by Midjourney

Political campaigns, especially in polarized environments, often use the repetition effect to reinforce their messages. The constant repetition of slogans, talking points, and specific narratives across various platforms solidifies these messages in the public’s mind, regardless of their factual accuracy.

Ethical considerations and countermeasures

The ethical implications of using the repetition effect are significant, especially when it involves spreading disinformation or harmful ideologies. It raises concerns about the manipulation of public opinion and the undermining of democratic processes.

To counteract the repetition effect, media literacy and critical thinking are essential. Educating the public about this psychological bias and encouraging skepticism towards repeated messages can help mitigate its influence. Fact-checking and the promotion of diverse sources of information also play a critical role in combating the spread of falsehoods reinforced by repetition.

Repetition effect: A key tool of propaganda

The repetition effect is a powerful psychological tool in the arsenal of propagandists and communicators. From its historical use by Hitler and the fascists to its continued relevance in the digital era, this technique demonstrates the profound impact of repeated messaging on public perception and belief.

While it can be used for benign purposes, such as in advertising or reinforcing positive social behaviors, its potential for manipulation and spreading misinformation cannot be understated. Understanding and recognizing the repetition effect is crucial in developing a more discerning and informed approach to the information we encounter daily.

June 22, 2023

30 Common Psychological Biases

Two psychologists ended up unlocking important keys to both the mind and to economics. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman created the field of behavioral economics and revolutionized cognitive psychology with the discovery of a set of cognitive and psychological biases that affect our decision-making abilities.

These systematic errors in our thinking and logic affect our everyday choices, behaviors, and evaluations of others. For more on this topic, please also see the Cognitive Distortions and Logical Fallacies data sets.

Heuristics: Mental shortcuts

Psychological biases are often the result of heuristics, which are mental shortcuts that help people make decisions quickly, but sometimes at the expense of accuracy.

One of the most well-known biases is confirmation bias, which is the tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses. This can lead individuals to ignore or dismiss evidence that challenges their views.

Another common bias is the anchoring effect, where individuals rely too heavily on an initial piece of information, known as the “anchor,” when making decisions. For example, if you are told that a shirt is on sale for $50, down from $100, you might perceive it as a good deal, even if the shirt is not worth $50.

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that leads people to overestimate the likelihood of events that are easily recalled. For instance, if someone recently heard about a plane crash, they might overestimate the dangers of flying, even though statistically, it is much safer than driving.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where individuals with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. Essentially, they are not skilled enough to recognize their own incompetence. On the flip side, highly competent individuals may underestimate their relative competence.

The halo effect is a type of bias where the perception of one positive trait of a person or thing influences the perception of other traits. For example, if someone is physically attractive, they are often perceived as more intelligent, talented, or kind.

Loss aversion is the tendency to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. People are generally more upset about losing $20 than they are happy about gaining $20. This bias can lead to risk-averse behavior.

The bandwagon effect refers to the tendency of people to align their beliefs and behaviors with those of a group. This can be seen in various social phenomena such as fashion trends and political movements.

The hindsight bias is the inclination to see events as being more predictable after they have happened. People often believe that they “knew it all along,” which can create overconfidence in their ability to predict events.

These are just a handful of the full list of 30 psychological biases detailed below in the dictionary table. Arm yourself with awareness of these biases, as striving to think critically can help in making more rational and informed decisions.

Psychological biases dictionary

Psychological bias	Explanation	Example
action bias	Belief that when we're faced with an ambiguous situation or challenge, that we must take some action vs. doing nothing, whether doing something is a good idea or not (and often quickly, without taking the time to fully examine the problem); also known as "naive interventionism"	sports enthusiasts rooting for their favorite teams are notorious for the superstitious rituals they are in psychological anguish if not able to perform, despite the objective fact that they have no ability whatsoever to affect the outcome (in pop culture, Robert DeNiro's character in Silver Linings Playbook exemplifies this)
adjustment heuristic	Tendency to start from an implicitly suggested reference point when assessing probabilities (the "anchor") and making adjustments to that reference point to reach an estimate
affect heuristic	We tend to underestimate the role of feelings of liking & disliking in our judgments and decision-making	Instead of considering risks and benefits independently, individuals with a negative attitude towards nuclear power may consider its benefits as low and risks as high, thereby leading to a more negative risk-benefit correlation than would be evident under conditions without time pressure (Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson, 2000)
anchoring effect	Fixating on a value or # that gets compared to everything else, b/c we tend to compare/contrast limited sets of items (aka “relativity trap”) — store sale items take advantage of this (so we compare the new value to the old, but not the old value on its own as a measure of worth)
availability heuristic	Tendency to make quick "intuitive" judgments about the size of given categories by the ease with which particular instances/examples of the class come to mind
bandwagon effect	Similar to groupthink, arising from our built-in desire to fit in and conform, we tend to "go along with the trend" when it becomes apparent to us
contagion heuristic	Tendency to avoid contact with people or objects viewed as "contaminated" by previous contact with someone or something else viewed as "bad"	Related to/inclusive of magical thinking — believing a person's sweater still carries their "essence," e.g.
confirmation bias	We tend to agree w/those who agree with us & avoid associating with those who don't, to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance (the Internet has sadly made this worse)
conjunction fallacy	A formal fallacy that occurs when one believes a specific condition is more probable than a general one
current moment bias	Preference to experience pleasure now, & put off the “pain” til later; lack of ability to imagine ourselves in the future & altering today's behaviors accordingly
disjunction fallacy	Misjudging that the disjunction of two events must be as likely as either of the events individually (as definitionally, via probability theory)
false consensus effect	People tend to overestimate the degree to which the general public shares their beliefs and opinions	potentially related to the availability heuristic, the self-serving bias, and naive realism
focusing illusion	Placing too much emphasis on one aspect of an event, outweighing its importance and causing error in judgment
Gambler's fallacy	Putting a tremendous amount of weight on previous events, believing they will influence future outcomes (even when outcome is random)	also frequently a logical fallacy
Identifiable Victim Effect	Tendency for people to care deeply about a single, specific tragedy but seem disinterested in vast atrocities affecting thousands or millions of people	more broadly, abstract concepts motivate us less than individual cases (especially when given visual evidence)
ingroup bias	Overestimating abilities and values of our immediate group & underestimating that of outgroups (oxytocin plays a role)
naive realism	The belief that each one of us sees the world objectively, while the people who disagree with us must be either uninformed or irrational	"Everyone is influenced by ideology and self-interest. Except for me. I see things as they are."
negativity bias	We pay more attention to bad news
neglecting probability	Reason we're afraid to fly even though it's statistically far more likely to be in a car accident (same way we fear terrorism but not more mundane accidents that are far more likely)
observational selection bias	Suddenly noticing things we didn't notice before & assuming frequency has increased (also contributes to feeling appearance of certain things or events can't be coincidence)
optimism bias	Tendency to believe that good things happen more often than bad things
planning fallacy	Systematic tendency toward unrealistic optimism about the time it takes to comple
positive expectation bias	Sense that our luck has to change for the better
post-purchase rationalization	Making ourselves feel better after we make crappy decisions (aka Buyer's Stockholm Syndrome)
projection bias	Assumption that most people think just like us (false consensus bias is related: thinking that others agree with us)
resemblance bias	Tendency to ignore statistical facts and use resemblance as a simplifying heuristic to make difficult judgments
self-serving bias	Tendency to evaluate ambiguous or complex information in a way that is beneficial to the speaker's interests, as well as to claim responsibility for successes and attribute failures to others or to uncontrollable external factors
shifting baseline syndrome	We tend to use very recent data points in our research (even when more data is available) and thus can miss picking up on some long-term trends
status-quo bias	We fear change, so tend to make choices that guarantee things remain the same (& by extension, assume that any other choice will be inferior, or make things worse)
treadmill effect	Our desire for the new version of a product or service is acute, even if upgrades are minor & incremental; but the pleasure we get from the new object wears off quickly to leave us back at the original satisfaction baseline

Top Mental Models for Thinkers ↗

Model thinking is an excellent way of improving our cognition and decision making abilities.

28 Cognitive distortions list ↗

Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits and unhelpful ways of thinking that can limit one’s ability to function in the world.

24 Logical fallacies list ↗

Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

July 27, 2021

Dunning-Kruger Effect

A strong and prevalent cognitive bias that causes a large majority of people to rate themselves more highly and more skilled than statistically possible. Lack of self-awareness can cause us to overestimate our knowledge or ability in a given area, and this phenomenon is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Posited in 1999 by two Cornell psychologists, Professors Dunning and Kruger also found that low-skilled people often have a double bind: they think of themselves as very skilled, but the lack even the basic level of skill that would allow them to detect and learn from their mistakes to get better. It’s very difficult for them to get out of the “trap” of perceiving themselves as superior, thus obviating any need to continue effort at improvements.

They also found that individuals of high skill levels also suffer from a sort of “lensing effect” (now dubbed the Dunning-Kruger Effect accordingly) in terms of their own self-assessment, but in the other direction — they are not generally aware of the rarity of their gifts. They assume most other people have the same kinds of knowledge and critical thinking skills that they do. In other words, careful study of our images of ourselves found us all to be living in a bubble of inaccurate self-perception, on both ends.

How to counteract the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

Ask for feedback from other people, and listen to it honestly.
Keep learning and gather knowledge and improving your skills.

April 17, 2021

Efficiency isn’t everything

There are many things in life you don’t want to rush through; many experiences you wish to linger. The American cult of efficiency is a kind of over-optimization, and over-fitting of a line that delusionally demands up and to the right every single day, every single quarter, every single time.

The benefits of stopping to smell the flowers have been extolled by sages and philosophers throughout the ages. In all of recorded human history lies some form of the mantra, “haste unto death” — for it is true. We rush headlong off the cliff after all the lemmings ahead of us. We can’t help ourselves — eternal moths to eternal flames.

The slow life

From the cuisine to jurisprudence, from behavior economics to psychological well-being, moving more slowly has numerous well-established benefits. Efficiency should never be the only goal, in any domain or at all times. As James Madison strongly agreed with, “moderation in all things” is the mathematically optimal way to approach life, justice, and governing. Influenced by the Marquis du Condorcet, the invention of statistics, and a distaste for extremism in all forms, The Founders were prescient regarding the later theory of the wisdom of the crowds. They sought to temper the passions of the crowds via checks and balances in our system of governance.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” said Martin Luther King, Jr. That the veracity of the quote remains unsettled is unsettling, like strange fruit swinging in the southern breeze. Yet the “quick justice” barbaric efficiency of slavery, the Confederacy, Jim Crow, superpredators, and mowing down unarmed Black men for traffic violations to name a few, are no examples of fairness. Faster isn’t always better, especially when it comes to justice. It takes time to gather facts, talk to witnesses, piece together the crimes and document them in an airtight way, brokering no doubt in the mind of a single jurist.

The plank in our own eyes

Part of this has to do with the historically definitional white male privilege that, for some reason, we’re still arguing about in our supposedly enlightened and modernized society whose blinders prevent the deep self-examination of our human past required to truly make progress. As if the human tendency to Other were somehow wiped away with the ~~Emancipation Proclamation~~ (1863) ~~Fourteenth Amendment~~ (1868) ~~Brown v. Board of Education~~ (1954) ~~Civil Rights Act~~ (1964) ~~Voting Rights Act~~ (1965) ~~Loving v. Virginia~~ (1967) ~~Fair Housing Act~~ (1968) ~~Community Reinvestment Act~~ (1977) end of the carceral state (TKTK).

Having grown up a person saddled with two X chromosomes my whole life with almost no choice but to wrestle with this reality from every single angle intellectual and emotional, I at least finally understand the fundamental psychological biases that lead to this kind of abject refusal to deal with our own skewed perspectives — opting instead for ratcheting up ever more impressive shouting matches to peacock about how our dizzying intellectual prowess is surely proof enough of our obvious objectivity.

We are all wrong. And I’m no different.

I know that we desperately want to believe in our own superiority, both to everything that came before us throughout history (the “illusion of progress” we cultivate — despite no such guarantee existing in the natural world — only adds to this effect) and to our fellow humans. Elitism is the ultimate -ism.

It subsumes racism, sexism, religious fundamentalism, and all forms of tribalism that each have, at their roots, the core premise that whatever group I’ve chosen to join up with (or been allotted to by random lottery) is clearly and objectively The Best Group. It’s the undeniable tautology of naive realism that leaves us trapped in the pathetically, perennially distorted view that “I know best, and by the transitive property of awesome, all the groups I consider myself a part of are therefore clearly also The Best (else, why would I be part of them?!).” This automagically relegates all the groups with which we don’t identify to the bottom of the heap: obviously inferior, as anyone can see!

Combine this native human bias with the delirious modern cocktail of vicious neoliberalism and aggressive techno-utopian libertarianism, and it’s a formula in which People Who Don’t Appear White and Male are definitionally suspect because of the statistics we’re blanketed with ever day that tell us they are under-represented in fields like technology.

“If this is so,” says the mind of a brilliant and inarguably logical engineer, “it can only be because their Rugged Individualism hasn’t endowed them with the skills to pass muster. It’s a shame, really — at least Other People, somewhere else who care about human beings more than machine learning are concerned with this dilemma (so I don’t have to be: after all, I’m really fucking busy saving the world so STOP BOTHERING ME with this irrelevant claptrap distraction already! AND WHERE IS MY GODDAMN BURRITO?!?! It’s my Soylent off day!!!) — but honestly I have no choice but to treat The Next Brown or Curvy Data Point I See with some measure of statistical skepticism.”

Lack of diversity is a self-fulfilling prophecy

Therein lies the rub. When we take an observation about the “way things are” and leap to the moral conclusion that this is rightly so — that things ought to be this way, because clearly they are this way for some reason — we commit the logical fallacy that so consumed Hume: the idea that we can derive what ought to be from what is, also known as the fact/value problem.

I don’t think most white male engineers would go quite so far as to claim that their industry must remain homogenous to succeed (although clearly some do, like our friend Kevin, who apparently believes that diversity is definitionally both inefficient and a straight ticket to the business failure shitter — and that our only moral interest in the problem is spurred by the meddlesome interference of that old bugaboo The Government). Instead, in Silicon Valley it tends to take the form of justifying inaction: they might provisionally admit (over an artisanally-prepared, locally-sourced (from a Tenderloin window box herb garden) cocktail at Bar Crudo, or perhaps a Blue Bottle americano) that the problem of diversity may warrant some moral scrutiny, but not by them. They are just way too busy swimming for the shores of a Better World (so long as a Better World enriches them and their investors, natch) to be bothered with this issue that they perceive as not having the slightest effect on them. In times like these (which seems to be All Times), we simply can’t afford the moral luxury of anything but lifeboat ethics.

Right? Well, wrong — unless we’re not troubled by the absurd logical paradox of making ourselves subject to both the zero-sum philosophy this requires and the free market ideology of infinitely available value creation that is supposed to be driving the entire economic party bus (with karaoke) we’re riding in. So, we have to decide: which is it? Is there economic opportunity for all, or do the pathetic losers who fail to become startup founders get left at the curb? And if so, who will sing the songs of their people?!

Our own worst enemies

A reference to the old saw that “attitude is everything” is appropriate here. Because one of the few things more exasperating than the unexamined privilege of ignoring the issue is the endless infighting that those of us in marginalized groups do with each other over what the solution should be.

…where to even start? Let me explain… no, there is too much. Let me sum up: this comment from some random white dude who loves extreme sports begins and ends with the outrageously outsized entitlement of trying to tell Slack how to run its own goddamn business, from atop his lofty perch of Somewhere That Is Not Anywhere Even Remotely Near being an actual employee of Slack with some potentially arguable skin in the game, much less a leader or decision-maker within the company.

I mean, Jesus. This is what we’re dealing with. A worldview so vehemently opposed to the idea of apparently even discussing the matter of diversity (in case some terminology or phrase or godforsakenly challenging idea might be construed as controversial and somewhere, someone might possibly be offended — like the entire LGBT community he tries to lump me in with and in a follow-up comment — without a shred of irony! — attempts to claim he was only “speaking for himself” when demanding both a public apology and insinuating that Erica Baker the Slack engineer should literally lose her job for daring to state an opinion while black (p.s. we’ve truly come full fucking circle now, haven’t we?!)) that people feel compelled to spend their time offering free, unwarranted, and undoubtedly unwanted “business advice” to the company THAT PRESUMABLY KNOWS BETTER ABOUT WHAT IT IS DOING than Richard Fucking Burton The Third of His Name!

How can you even hold such a logical paradox in your head, much less lay it out in a single paragraph: the idea that somehow, bizarrely, Slack itself not only lacks the control over whether or not Erica Baker may be “let go for similar remarks” (I mean, who would be doing the firing in this case?! Is there some vigilante regulatory-required Anti-Social-Justice-Warrior in tights and a cape flying around Silicon Valley waiting for bat signals sent from comments on TechCrunch to swoop in from outside the company and authorize her termination?!), but may also be on such shaky ground from some available success metric (I assure you it’s not. It’s one of the few blindingly amazing success stories of recent memory and continues to be one of the fastest growing enterprise startups Of All Time) that they might just have to resort to taking the advice of some Totally Irrelevant Troll about what their fucking brand should be?!?

I. JUST. CAN’T. EVEN!!! (can you?! if so, better abandon all ye hope of ever working at Slack.)

Just goes to show: we’ll cling to whatever flimsy life raft of privilege we think we’re on, even as the Leaky Lifeboat (not to mention the Queen Friggin’ Mary) sails past, breathing a sigh of relief that we don’t seem eager to hop on and capsize it.

Everyone calm down. But be prepared to leave through the eastern gate

Let’s all dial down our Adderall drips for just one minute (but that’s all we can afford — the lifeboat awaits and all) and take a chill pill (feel free to take this as literally as you like). Do some soul-searching reflection, consult our Headspace apps, meditate in VR, or whatever the frak we need to do to enter the Tao Space.

Now let’s ask ourselves: if we believe we’re striving ever more harriedly toward a Better World, then what the heck does that world even look like? Close your eyes and picture it: what do you see? Are people happy in this world? Do they seem to go about their lives effortlessly and with graceful purpose in the human-connected face of god (for lack of a better term… so far), or are they still scurrying to and fro in the franticness of Trying To Get There?

Do people treat each other well, and with respect despite their differences, and in the face of overwhelming obstacles and risks we will have an impossible time solving from within isolated bunkers — or are they still spewing vitriol at each other over their gleefully intentional mischaracterizations of each other’s intentions?

Do they exhibit peace in the struggle, or are they still trying to shout each other down inside of every comment thread and social media exchange on the internet just to win a tiny provincial shadow of an urgently important argument about who has The Best Idea on how we can live in peace and harmony with each other, and how to impose it on the rest of those poor, lazy suckers who simply aren’t as gifted as the elite leaders who so grudgingly bear the wearisome heavy burden of Saving The World whilst being rewarded ever-so-handsomely with Real Non-Inflation Eaten Wages, lucrative stock options and liquidation preferences, artisanal cocktails, and Magically Appearing Burritos?

If we don’t even know what it looks like, then how will we know what values we should be working for, or recognize if and when we’ve arrived?

bias

Irrational thinking: And how to counter it

Types of cognitive distortion

Cognitive distortions list

More related to cognitive distortions:

Black and white thinking in political psychology

Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era

The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking

Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms

Information Processing Under Cognitive Load

Contemporary Political Manifestations

Institutional Polarization Patterns

Identity-Based Political Cognition

Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts

Democratic Governance Challenges

Economic System Implications

Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis

The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model

Systems Thinking Applications

Historical Pattern Recognition

Contemporary Case Studies

Social Media Discourse Patterns

Political Movement Dynamics

Crisis Response Patterns

Neurological and Psychological Foundations

Cognitive Processing Systems

Developmental Psychology Perspectives

Organizational and Institutional Responses

Educational System Adaptations

Democratic Institution Reforms

Technology Platform Governance

Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking

Individual-Level Interventions

Community-Level Initiatives

Institutional Design Principles

Implications for Democratic Resilience

Representation and Legitimacy

Policy Development and Implementation

Future Research Directions

Technology and Cognition

Political Psychology and Behavior

Institutional Design and Reform

Toward cognitive complexity

Related concepts and further reading

More topics related to black and white thinking:

Origins and development

Core components of cultivation theory

Psychological mechanisms

Critiques and modern perspectives

Application to modern media

Understanding the confirmation loop

Media literacy and disinformation

Political ideologies

Operation of the confirmation loop

Becoming more aware and breaking the loop

Ethical standards in fact-checking

Fact-checking in the U.S.: A historical perspective

Challenges from disinformation and propaganda

Bias and trust issues in fact-checking

Cherry-picking and disinformation

The role of cherry-picking in political ideology

Counteracting cherry-picking

Understanding source amnesia

Source amnesia in the media landscape

Implications of source amnesia

Addressing source amnesia

Origin and mechanism

Relation to media, disinformation, echo chambers, and media bubbles

How the backfire effect happens

Prevention and mitigation

Origins and mechanisms

Media and information bubbles

Role in propaganda and disinformation

Psychological impact

Case studies and examples

Counteracting the wallpaper effect

Implications for democracy and society

Historical context

Psychological basis

Modern era usage