Dictionary

The tendency to favor information that confirms existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence.

A systematic pattern of deviation from rational judgment built into human cognition.

The tendency to evaluate evidence in ways that support conclusions one already wants to reach.

The mental discomfort caused by holding two contradictory beliefs or values simultaneously.

Over-reliance on the first piece of information encountered when making subsequent judgments.

Judging probability by how easily examples come to mind rather than by actual frequency.

The tendency to interpret information as part of a coherent story rather than as isolated facts.

Letting one positive trait of a person influence the overall judgment of their other qualities.

The tendency to strengthen a belief when presented with evidence that contradicts it.

The tendency for low-ability individuals to overestimate their competence while experts underestimate theirs.

The theory that group memberships form a core part of personal identity and shape behavior.

The tendency to evaluate information in ways that protect one's group identity and social belonging.

The innate human tendency to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups and favor one's own.

Continuing an endeavor because of previously invested resources rather than future expected returns.

The psychological tendency to defend and rationalize the existing social and political order.

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

A defense mechanism where individuals align with those who hold power over them.

One-sided emotional bonds formed with public figures who are unaware of the individual's existence.

Excessive admiration of famous or wealthy individuals that influences personal beliefs and political attitudes.

A framework describing five structural filters that systematically shape mass media output.

The process of shaping public opinion through media repetition so people support elite-serving policies voluntarily.

Presenting information using specific language or context that influences how it is interpreted.

The media's power to determine which topics the public considers important by choosing what to cover.

The range of ideas considered acceptable in mainstream public discourse at a given time.

The process by which individuals or institutions control what information reaches the public.

Emphasizing certain facts or angles of a story while systematically omitting others.

Presenting two sides of an issue as equally valid despite overwhelming evidence favoring one.

The strategic construction and deployment of competing narratives to control how events are understood.

Disguising organized campaigns as spontaneous grassroots movements to manufacture public support.

Co-opting or creating opposition movements so they never genuinely threaten those in power.

Releasing partial truth as damage control to prevent the full story from emerging.

An economic model where human attention is the scarce commodity platforms compete to capture.

Fragmenting a population along existing tensions so groups fight each other instead of those in power.

Politically divisive topics chosen for their ability to split voters along emotional lines.

Prolonged conflicts over identity and values that consume public attention while structural issues go undiscussed.

Presenting only two options as if no other possibilities exist to constrain the terms of debate.

Partisan identity based on tribal loyalty and hostility toward the opposing side rather than policy evaluation.

Creating or co-opting opposition movements to channel dissent into ineffective and non-threatening directions.

Content deliberately crafted to provoke outrage in order to maximize engagement and sharing.

A maintained illusion of genuine conflict where all participants tacitly agree the performance is staged.

When a regulatory agency serves the interests of the industry it was created to oversee.

The movement of personnel between government regulatory roles and the industries they are meant to oversee.

An emergency that is fabricated or exaggerated to justify policies that would otherwise face opposition.

Using entertainment and material comfort to pacify a population and discourage political engagement.

The deliberate relocation of political conflict from consensus issues to manufactured 50/50 splits.

The packaging of unrelated political positions into identity kits that people adopt as a whole, enforced by tribal loyalty.

A systematic process of hypothesis testing through observation, experimentation, and replication.

The widespread failure of published scientific findings to produce the same results when studies are repeated.

The tendency of journals to publish positive or novel results while negative findings go unreported.

Manipulating data analysis until a statistically significant but spurious result is found.

The tendency for industry-funded research to produce results that favor the sponsor's interests.

A situation where personal, financial, or career stakes compromise the objectivity of research or decision-making.

When scientific oversight agencies come to serve the industries they were established to regulate.

Structural weaknesses in peer review that limit its ability to catch errors, fraud, or bias.

Treating scientific consensus as an unchallengeable belief system rather than a method open to scrutiny.

Selectively presenting only the evidence that supports a conclusion while omitting what contradicts it.

Accepting a claim based on a person's status or credentials rather than evaluating the supporting evidence.

The distinction between individual personal experiences and findings from controlled group studies.

The difference between a result being unlikely due to chance and it being meaningful in practice.

The automatic rejection of new evidence that contradicts established beliefs or practices.

The practice of treating any questioning of authority as transgression rather than inquiry.

A belief or principle declared beyond debate by an authority, regardless of evidence.

Citing specific passages from a text while omitting contradictory ones to support an argument.

Using religious language and moral certainty to shield political agendas from criticism.

The manufactured framing of science and religion as mutually exclusive opposing forces.

Reproducing the rigid certainty and tribal dynamics of religion within anti-religious movements.

Attaching political positions to religious authority so disagreement feels like moral failure.

The shaping of secular laws by religious doctrine without transparent acknowledgment of their origin.

The capacity to independently interpret complex information and construct a coherent understanding of reality.

Maintaining personal control over how you form beliefs rather than delegating to any single authority.

The shared pool of knowledge and evidence a society depends on for collective decision-making.

An individual's capacity to recognise and resist manipulative narratives and emotional persuasion tactics.

Reasoning from fundamental truths rather than inherited assumptions, analogies, or conventions.

Constructing the strongest version of an opposing argument before attempting to refute it.

The ongoing awareness that your knowledge has limits and your confidence may be misplaced.

Verifying information across multiple independent sources with different biases and incentives.

Asking who benefits from a narrative to reveal the incentive structure behind it.

Examining whether financial, political, or career incentives may distort the information someone presents.

The principle that all models and frameworks are simplifications, not reality itself.

The criterion that a meaningful claim must be capable of being proven wrong by evidence.

A CIA programme that recruited journalists and media outlets to spread government-approved narratives.

A secret CIA programme that tested mind control techniques on unwitting human subjects.

An FBI programme that surveilled, infiltrated, and disrupted domestic political organisations for fifteen years.

A disputed naval incident used to justify major US military escalation in Vietnam.

False intelligence claims about Iraqi weapons used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

A decades-long industry campaign to manufacture scientific doubt about the harms of smoking.

Fabricated congressional testimony by a coached witness used to build support for the Gulf War.

A forty-year US government study that deliberately withheld syphilis treatment from Black men.

Industry-funded research that falsely blamed dietary fat instead of sugar for heart disease.

Leaked classified documents revealing systematic government deception about the Vietnam War.

NSA programmes conducting mass surveillance of citizens' communications, exposed by Edward Snowden in 2013.

Systematic manipulation of global benchmark interest rates by major banks for profit.

Using the "conspiracy theory" label to dismiss legitimate questions without examining the evidence.

Deliberately shifting the boundaries of acceptable opinion to make extreme ideas seem moderate.

Manufacturing or exploiting a crisis to impose pre-prepared measures the public would otherwise reject.

Cognitive tendency to assume current conditions will continue because they always have before.

Ceasing to act after repeated experiences of powerlessness, even when change becomes possible.

Flooding people with excessive information so they cannot distinguish signal from noise.

Explaining systemic outcomes through institutional incentives rather than individual bad actors.

Overwhelming an opponent with rapid-fire claims too numerous to refute within the available time.

Deflecting criticism by pointing to an opponent's similar or worse behavior instead of addressing the argument.

Using stigmatizing labels to discredit a person and shut down their argument without engaging it.

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

Distorting someone's position into a weaker version, then attacking the distortion instead.

Treating a claim as true solely because an authority figure endorses it.

Presenting only two options as if no other possibilities exist.

Claiming one action will inevitably trigger a chain of increasingly extreme consequences without evidence.

Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.

Using a claim as its own evidence, so the conclusion and premise depend on each other.

Mistaking two things that occur together for one causing the other.

The obligation of the person making a claim to provide evidence supporting it.

Principle that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions should be considered first.

Two complementary reasoning methods: applying general rules to specifics versus building general rules from observations.

AI systems presenting institutional consensus as neutral fact due to training data and safety constraints.