What It Is

A simplified framing of a question as an A or B choice. “There are only two options.”

How It Shows Up in Public Life

Used when:

• complexity is inconvenient

• coalitions are threatening

• urgency is weaponized

Why It’s Persuasive

False binaries often reference comfortable identity frames that reduce mental load. The simplification of complex topics to ‘obvious’ choices obscure additional variables and options are also present.

• simplifies complexity

• protects status or power

What It Obscures

• power asymmetries

• alternative futures

Who Benefits

• institutions

• industries

• political actors

• cultural narratives

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• What options are being left out of this framing?

• Who benefits from forcing a two-choice narrative?

• What would a spectrum, layered, or phased solution look like instead?

What It Is

A misrepresentation of argumentation or evidence to make advocacy easier.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

Used when:

• someone doesn’t want to engage honestly

• outrage performs better than nuance

Why It’s Persuasive

For spectators not paying close attention it looks like engagement/ persuasion.

• avoids engagement

• protects status or power

What It Obscures

• authentic engagement

• nuance in dialogue

• moral responsibility

• power asymmetries

Who Benefits

• bad faith political actors

• media Elites

• beneficiaries of the status quo

• cultural narratives

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• “What evidence would actually help us evaluate this claim — and do we have it?”

• “ What constraints are people operating under that this argument ignores?”

• “Who bears the cost of this framing?”

• “What assumptions are being treated as natural?”

What It Is

A claim that justifies itself by restating its own assumptions, offering no external reasoning or evidence.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Policies defended because they are “standard practice”

• Laws upheld because they are already law

• Institutions asserting legitimacy because they exist

Why It’s Persuasive

• Reduces uncertainty

• Signals authority and stability

• Avoids the discomfort of questioning foundations

What It Obscures

• Whether the system still serves its purpose

• Who the system harms or excludes

• The possibility of redesign

Who Benefits

• Established institutions

• Incumbent leadership

• Anyone whose power depends on inertia

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• What problem was this rule originally designed to solve?

• Is it still solving that problem now?

• Who is harmed if we treat this as unquestionable?

(“Think of the children” / “This is an existential threat”)

What It Is

An exaggerated reaction to a perceived threat that frames complex issues as urgent moral emergencies.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Inflated fears around crime, gender, drugs, or youth behavior

• Policy rushed through without evidence

• Media cycles driven by outrage rather than proportion

Why It’s Persuasive

• Activates fear and protection instincts

• Simplifies complex problems into villains and victims

• Creates a sense of moral clarity

What It Obscures

• Actual data and root causes

• Long-term solutions

• Who benefits from heightened fear

Who Benefits

• Media outlets

• Political actors seeking attention or control

• Industries tied to enforcement or surveillance

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• What does the evidence actually show?

• Who is being portrayed as dangerous, and why?

• What solutions would reduce harm without escalating fear?

What It Is

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

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Discrediting ideas based on background, identity, or tone

• Shifting debate to character rather than substance

• Media focus on personalities over policies

Why It’s Persuasive

• Provides emotional release

• Reinforces in-group loyalty

• Avoids engaging with difficult ideas

What It Obscures

• The validity of the underlying argument

• Structural problems being named

• Shared interests across differences

Who Benefits

• Those lacking strong counterarguments

• Power holders threatened by critique

• Polarized media ecosystems

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• Is the claim true regardless of who is making it?

• What evidence supports or contradicts it?

• What are we avoiding by personalizing this?

What It Is

Treating authority or credentials as a substitute for explanation, accountability, or debate.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Policies justified without transparency

• Technical language used to shut down questions

• Experts insulated from lived consequences

Why It’s Persuasive

• Reduces cognitive effort

• Creates a sense of safety and order

• Signals competence

What It Obscures

• Value judgments embedded in technical decisions

• Who experts answer to

• Whose knowledge is excluded

Who Benefits

• Professional classes

• Institutions resistant to oversight

• Systems that rely on opacity

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• What assumptions are experts making?

• Who experiences the outcomes of these decisions?

• What alternatives were considered and dismissed?

What It Is

Treating widespread structural problems as the result of individual behavior or character.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Poverty framed as laziness

• Health outcomes blamed on lifestyle alone

• Workers told to “reskill” instead of fixing labor conditions

Why It’s Persuasive

• Preserves belief in fairness

• Avoids collective responsibility

• Maintains moral hierarchies

What It Obscures

• Structural constraints

• Power imbalances

• Predictable patterns of harm

Who Benefits

• Employers

• Governments avoiding reform

• Narratives that protect inequality

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• How common is this outcome across people?

• What constraints shape these choices?

• What would reduce harm at the system level?

What It Is

The belief that outcomes reflect effort and talent alone, independent of starting conditions or structure.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Inequality justified as deserved

• Success treated as proof of virtue

• Failure treated as moral deficiency

Why It’s Persuasive

• Flatters winners

• Offers hope of upward mobility

• Makes inequality feel fair

What It Obscures

• Inherited advantage

• Unequal access to opportunity

• The role of luck and timing

Who Benefits

• Economic elites

• Institutions built on exclusion

• Narratives that naturalize hierarchy

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• What advantages existed before effort began?

• How mobile is this system really?

• What would fairness look like in practice?

What It Is

Confusing adherence to rules or process with achieving meaningful results.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Bureaucracies prioritizing compliance over impact

• Leaders citing process to deflect responsibility

• Endless pilots, studies, and task forces

Why It’s Persuasive

• Provides legal and moral cover

• Feels orderly and responsible

• Avoids blame

What It Obscures

• Whether people’s lives actually improve

• Who bears the cost of delay

• Moral accountability

Who Benefits

• Institutions protecting themselves

• Risk-averse leadership

• Systems resistant to change

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• What outcome were we trying to achieve?

• Did this process help or hinder that goal?

• Who paid the price for delay?

What It Is

Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue instead of addressing the original one.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Accountability avoided through comparison

• Debates derailed into endless side issues

• Moral equivalence used to excuse harm

Why It’s Persuasive

• Feels fair and balanced

• Avoids discomfort

• Keeps conflicts unresolved

What It Obscures

• Responsibility for specific harms

• The ability to address problems sequentially

• Power differences between actors

Who Benefits

• Those facing scrutiny

• Status quo defenders

• Cynical political actors

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• Does this excuse the original harm?

• Can we address multiple issues without deflection?

• Who gains by keeping this unresolved?

What It Is

Attributing one’s own motives, behaviors, or failures to others.

How It Shows Up in Public Life

• Accusations mirroring the accuser’s actions

• Moral outrage used as camouflage

• Inverted victim narratives

Why It’s Persuasive

• Protects self-image

• Creates moral distance

• Mobilizes fear and anger

What It Obscures

• Actual sources of harm

• Self-accountability

• Power dynamics

Who Benefits

• Actors avoiding responsibility

• Movements built on grievance

• Media ecosystems that reward conflict

What Clear Thinking Would Ask Instead

• What evidence supports this claim?

• Who is actually exercising power here?

• What might we be avoiding seeing about ourselves?