Bo Grant

Confirmation appeal

AI detected as: Confirmation Bias Priming

Selectively presenting information that confirms what you probably already believe. Content that matches your existing worldview requires almost no mental effort to accept — it just feels obviously true.

Wason (1960); Nickerson's confirmation bias review (1998)

Brand Integration Via Anecdote

This technique was detected by AI but doesn't yet map to our curated glossary. We're tracking its usage patterns.

Statistical Laundering

This technique was detected by AI but doesn't yet map to our curated glossary. We're tracking its usage patterns.

Survivorship Bias And Financial Simplification

This technique was detected by AI but doesn't yet map to our curated glossary. We're tracking its usage patterns.

Pseudo-empathetic Pathologization

This technique was detected by AI but doesn't yet map to our curated glossary. We're tracking its usage patterns.

Moral framing

AI detected as: Moral Outrage Priming

Presenting a complex issue with genuine tradeoffs as a simple choice between right and wrong. Once something is framed as a moral issue, compromise feels like complicity and disagreement feels immoral rather than reasonable.

Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory; Lakoff's framing research (2004)

Appeal to authority

AI detected as: Authority Appropriation

Citing an expert or institution to support a claim, substituting their credibility for evidence you can evaluate yourself. Legitimate when the authority is relevant; manipulative when they aren't qualified or when the citation is vague.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Locke, 1690); Cialdini's Authority principle (1984)

Moral outrage

AI detected as: Outrage Priming

Provoking a sense that something is deeply unfair or wrong, activating a feeling that demands action — sharing, protesting, punishing — before you've fully evaluated the situation. It's one of the most viral emotions online because it combines anger with righteousness.

Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory (2004); Brady et al. (2017, PNAS)

Moral framing

Presenting a complex issue with genuine tradeoffs as a simple choice between right and wrong. Once something is framed as a moral issue, compromise feels like complicity and disagreement feels immoral rather than reasonable.

Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory; Lakoff's framing research (2004)

Moral outrage

Provoking a sense that something is deeply unfair or wrong, activating a feeling that demands action — sharing, protesting, punishing — before you've fully evaluated the situation. It's one of the most viral emotions online because it combines anger with righteousness.

Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory (2004); Brady et al. (2017, PNAS)

Confirmation appeal

Selectively presenting information that confirms what you probably already believe. Content that matches your existing worldview requires almost no mental effort to accept — it just feels obviously true.

Wason (1960); Nickerson's confirmation bias review (1998)

Appeal to authority

Citing an expert or institution to support a claim, substituting their credibility for evidence you can evaluate yourself. Legitimate when the authority is relevant; manipulative when they aren't qualified or when the citation is vague.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Locke, 1690); Cialdini's Authority principle (1984)

Forced equivalence

Presenting two things as equally valid when they aren't. By giving equal weight to a well-supported position and a fringe one, it manufactures the appearance of legitimate debate. Feels like fairness — "hearing both sides" — even when one side has overwhelming evidence.

Boykoff & Boykoff (2004) on media false balance