George A.A.

Moral framing

AI detected as: Economic Moral Decoupling

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)

Character flattening

AI detected as: Character Assassination Via Ancestral Guilt

Reducing a complex person to one defining trait — hero, villain, genius, fool — stripping away nuance that would complicate the narrative. Once someone is labeled, everything they do gets interpreted through that lens.

Fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977); Propp's narrative archetypes (1928)

In-group/Out-group framing

AI detected as: Civilizational Anxiety 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)

Adversarial Validation

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

Forced equivalence

AI detected as: Strategic 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

Us vs. Them

AI detected as: False Binary Framing

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

Us vs. Them

AI detected as: Identity-based Victory Framing

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

Selection Bias (cherry-picking)

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

Us vs. Them

AI detected as: Dehumanizing Metaphorical Priming

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

Threat Inflation Through Semantic Redefinition

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

Appeal to authority

AI detected as: Authority-based Pathologization

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 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)

Character flattening

Reducing a complex person to one defining trait — hero, villain, genius, fool — stripping away nuance that would complicate the narrative. Once someone is labeled, everything they do gets interpreted through that lens.

Fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977); Propp's narrative archetypes (1928)

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

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)

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

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)