Triggernometry

In-group/Out-group framing

Leveraging your tendency to automatically trust information from "our people" and distrust outsiders. Once groups are established, people apply different standards of evidence depending on who is speaking.

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979); Cialdini's Unity principle (2016)

Strategic ambiguity

Leaving claims vague enough that different audiences each hear what they want. By never committing to a specific, falsifiable position, the speaker avoids accountability while supporters project their own preferred meaning.

Eisenberg (1984); dog whistling research (Mendelberg, 2001)

Association

Pairing a new idea, product, or person with something you already feel positively or negatively about. The goal is to transfer your existing emotional response without any logical connection. It works below conscious awareness.

Evaluative conditioning (Pavlov); IPA 'Transfer' technique (1937)

Performed authenticity

The deliberate construction of "realness" — confessional tone, casual filming, strategic vulnerability — designed to lower your guard. When someone appears unpolished and honest, you evaluate their claims less critically. The spontaneity is rehearsed.

Goffman's dramaturgy (1959); Audrezet et al. (2020) on performed authenticity

Us vs. Them

Dividing the world into two camps — people like us (good, trustworthy) and people not like us (dangerous, wrong). It exploits a deep human tendency to favor our own group. Once you accept the division, information from "them" gets automatically discounted.

Tajfel's Social Identity Theory (1979); Minimal Group Paradigm

Single-cause framing

Attributing a complex outcome to a single cause, ignoring the web of contributing factors. A clean explanation is more satisfying and easier to act on than a complicated one. Especially effective when the proposed cause is something you already dislike.

Fallacy of the single cause; Kahneman's WYSIATI principle

Responsibility reframing

Reframing a situation so the person who caused harm appears to be the real victim, and the actual victim appears responsible. It forces observers to reconsider who deserves sympathy, distracting from the original wrongdoing.

Freyd's DARVO framework (1997) — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender