PS226 - Your bias/logical fallacy is...

Anchoring

the first thing you judge influences your judgement of all that follows

the sunk cost fallacy

you irrationally cling to things that have already cost you something

the availability heuristic

your judgements are influenced by what springs most easily to mind

the curse of knowledge

once you undertand something you presume it to be obvious to everyone

confirmation bias

you favor things that confirm your existing beliefs

belief bias

if a conclusion supports your existing beliefs, you’ll rationalize anything that supports it

self-serving bias

you believe your failures are due to external factors, yet you’re responsible for your successes

the backfire effect

when some aspect of your core beliefs is challenged, it can cause you to beleive even more strongly

the barnum effect

you see personal specifics in vague statements by filling in the gaps

negativity bias

you allow negative things to disproportionately influence your thinking

declinism

you remember the past as better than it was, and expect the future to be worse than it will likely be

framing effect

you allow yourself to be unduly influenced by context and delivery

halo effect

how much you like someone, or how attractive they are, infleuences your other judgments of them

optimism bias

you overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes

pessimism bias

you overestimate the likelihood of negative outcomes

just-world hypothesis

your preference for justice makes you presume it exists

in-group bias

you unfairly favor those who belong to your group

placebo effect

if you believe you’re taking medicine it can sometimes ‘work’ even if it’s fake

bystander effect

you presume someone else is going to do something in an emergency situation

reactance

you’d rather do the opposite of what someone is trying to make you do

spotlight effect

you overestimate how much people notice how you look and act

groupthink

you let the social dynamics of a group situation override the best outcomes

fundamental attribution error

you judge others on their character, but yourself on the situation

the dunning-kruger effect

the more you know, the less confident you’re likely to be

strawman

you misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack

false cause

you presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other

burden of proof

you said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove

appeal to nature

you argued that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal

personal incredulity

because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it workds, you made out like it’s probably not true

no true scotsman

you made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument

appeal to emotion

you attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument

ambiguity

you used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth

begging the question

you presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise

the fallacy fallacy

you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong

the gambler’s fallacy

you said that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins

anecdotal

you used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence

ad hominem

you attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument

appeal to authority

you said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true

texas sharpshotoer

you cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption

loaded question

you asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn’t be answered without appearing guilty

middle ground

you claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth

social pleading

you moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false

composition/division

you assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts

slippery slope

you said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen

bandwagon

you appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of vaidation

tu quoque

you avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism

genetic

you judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it cam

black-or-white

you presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist