Give your thinking better words.

Dismissing an argument through insults or negative character claims about its author.

Rejecting a claim by attacking the person who makes it instead of addressing the claim.

Inferring a condition from its result even though other conditions could produce the same result.

Drawing a conclusion from a sentence whose grammar allows more than one meaning.

Relying too heavily on an initial number, value, or reference point when making a judgment.

Using one or a few vivid personal stories to support a broad conclusion.

Using fear to secure agreement without adequately supporting the threatened outcome.

Using a threat or coercion in place of reasons for accepting a conclusion.

Using sympathy as a substitute for evidence that a claim is true or a decision is justified.

Treating a person's endorsement as strong evidence when they lack relevant expertise.

Relying on genuine expertise in one field as if it established expertise in another.

Estimating likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.

The background probability before case-specific details are added.

Underweighting background probabilities in favor of case-specific details.

Interpreting a count or percentage without considering the total group it came from.

Assuming the conclusion within the premises offered to support it.

Continuing to hold a belief after the original evidence for it has been discredited.

The match between confidence and actual accuracy.

Treating fame or popularity as evidence of expertise.

Selecting only evidence that supports a claim while ignoring relevant contrary evidence.

Rejecting a claim because the speaker's situation or interests allegedly make it biased.

The habit of checking an intuitive answer before accepting it.

The tendency to favor information that supports what you already believe.

Judging a combination of events as more likely than one of its component events.

The lingering effect of misinformation on reasoning after it has been corrected.

Assuming that because two things vary together, one must cause the other.

Inferring that a result cannot occur because one sufficient condition did not occur.

A pattern in which low skill can also limit a person's ability to recognize their errors.

Using the same word in different senses within an argument as if its meaning stayed fixed.

Investing more in a failing course of action to defend or justify earlier decisions.

Letting unusual or dramatic cases dominate judgment about what is typical.

Assuming that what is true of each part must be true of the whole.

Assuming that what is true of a whole must be true of every part.

A reasoning error that treats limited options as if they exhaust the field.

Changing a judgment because equivalent information is presented in different ways.

Believing that an independent random outcome is due because the opposite outcome occurred repeatedly.

Drawing a broad conclusion from too few or unrepresentative cases.

Seeing an outcome as more predictable after learning that it occurred.

Inferring a persistent streak or changed success rate from a short cluster of successes.

The tendency to judge a repeated statement as more credible because it feels familiar.

A question that embeds a disputed assumption and pressures any direct answer to accept it.

The tendency for losses to influence choices more strongly than equivalent gains.

Creating artificial time pressure to prevent careful evaluation of a claim or choice.

Evaluating evidence in ways that favor a desired conclusion or protect an identity.

Changing the standard of proof after the original standard has been met.

Favoring a simple, coherent causal story over a messier explanation that better fits the evidence.

Attributing a relationship to one factor while ignoring another factor that may explain both.

Judging the quality of a decision mainly by how it turned out.

Having more confidence in a judgment, estimate, or ability than accuracy warrants.

Explaining a complex outcome with one cause while ignoring other important contributors.

Discrediting a source in advance so that anything they say will be dismissed.

Assuming that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second.

A distortion caused when studies with positive or striking results are more likely to become visible.

Introducing an irrelevant issue that distracts from the point under discussion.

Judging probability by resemblance to a prototype instead of using relevant statistics.

Mistaking the direction of a causal relationship.

Quietly expanding or changing what a claim covers during an argument.

A systematic distortion caused by how cases enter, remain in, or leave a sample.

Claiming that one step will trigger an extreme chain of events without enough support for the links.

Treating a small number of observations as more stable or representative than it is.

The strongest fair version of an argument you are evaluating.

Misrepresenting a position as weaker or more extreme so it is easier to attack.

Continuing a choice because of unrecoverable past investment instead of its future value.

Leaving out relevant information that would weaken or change the apparent conclusion.

Drawing conclusions from visible successes while overlooking cases that failed or disappeared.

Using a personal endorsement as if it established a general effect or causal claim.

Moving to a different question before the original question has been answered.

Answering criticism by accusing the critic of the same fault.

A selection bias caused when people who opt in differ systematically from those who do not.

Inferring that two things are alike in a relevant way because they share superficial features.

Deflecting criticism by pointing to another person's or group's alleged wrongdoing.