#fallacies in reasoning

[monkeyandelf]

Anonymous Authority: How We Are Persuaded by “Scientifically Proven” Facts Without Names

On https://www.monkeyandelf.com/anonymous-authority-how-we-are-persuaded-by-scientifically-proven-facts-without-names/

Anonymous Authority: How We Are Persuaded by “Scientifically Proven” Facts Without Names

In an age of information overload, trust has become a currency—and anonymous authority has become a hidden, manipulative force.

You’ve probably heard phrases like:

“Doctors recommend…”

“Scientists have proven…”

“According to sources close to the matter…”

These kinds of statements sound authoritative, factual, and reliable. But here’s the catch: you’re not told who said it, where it came from, or whether it can be verified.

Welcome to the world of anonymous authority—a subtle but powerful tool that influences public opinion without ever showing its face.

What Is Anonymous Authority?

Anonymous authority refers to the use of unnamed experts, sources, or institutions to support a claim. The power of the message rests on the implied credibility of the anonymous figure, not on actual evidence or verifiable facts.

This technique is frequently used in:

Advertising (“9 out of 10 dentists agree…”)

Journalism (“A senior official who asked to remain anonymous…”)

Politics (“Sources within the administration revealed…”)

Social media (“Experts are warning about a new trend…”)

These tactics aim to persuade without proof. The strategy relies on the listener’s instinct to trust authority—even when it’s faceless.

Why Is Anonymous Authority So Persuasive?

1. We Trust Experts—Even Imaginary Ones

Humans are psychologically wired to respect knowledge and experience. When someone mentions “scientists” or “doctors,” we assume those people have credentials, data, and integrity—even when no names are given.

This cognitive shortcut helps us make quick decisions, but it’s also a perfect opening for manipulation.

2. It Creates the Illusion of Consensus

Phrases like “studies show” or “experts agree” subtly imply that there is a broad agreement within a field—even if there’s no actual study, no expert, and no consensus.

It gives a false sense of certainty, which makes the claim feel objective, data-driven, and immune to doubt.

3. It Prevents Accountability

Anonymity shields the supposed source from scrutiny. You can’t question the methodology, credentials, or motives of an expert you can’t identify.

And that makes debunking nearly impossible.

Real-World Examples of Anonymous Authority in Action

Advertising Manipulation

“Studies have shown that people lose 10 pounds in 2 weeks with this supplement!”

Which studies? Conducted where? Peer-reviewed? Without this information, such claims are marketing tools, not facts.

Media and Political Influence

“A high-level intelligence official, who asked to remain anonymous, confirmed the operation.”

Such quotes may seem credible, but without transparency, they serve as a vehicle for strategic leaks, spin, or political agendas.

Health and Lifestyle Claims

“Doctors recommend this toothbrush.”

Which doctors? Based on what research? Often, these are vague generalizations that serve to sell products, not protect your health.

The Hidden Dangers of Anonymous Authority

1. Lack of Verifiability

You can’t evaluate what you can’t trace. Anonymous claims can’t be fact-checked, challenged, or investigated. This makes them ideal tools for misinformation.

2. Data Distortion or Misuse

Even if research exists, selective citation or out-of-context quoting can skew the facts to fit a narrative.

3. False Objectivity

When statements are dressed in scientific or expert-sounding language—without offering proof—they appear neutral but may carry strong bias.

4. Manufacturing Consent

By invoking invisible authorities, organizations can nudge people toward certain behaviors—like buying a product, supporting a policy, or fearing a non-existent threat.

Related Propaganda Techniques to Watch Out For

Anonymous authority isn’t alone. It often works in tandem with other rhetorical fallacies that are just as misleading.

1. Appeal to the Majority (Argumentum ad Populum)

“Everyone uses this brand—it must be the best!”

Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s true, right, or good. History has shown us that the majority can be catastrophically wrong.

Example: “All my friends vape, so it’s totally safe.”

2. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

“A famous scientist says this theory is correct.”

Even experts can be wrong��or biased. Their opinion should be part of a conversation, not the end of it.

Example: “A celebrity doctor recommends this miracle cure!”

3. Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem)

“This is how it’s always been done.”

Tradition is not inherently logical or beneficial. Societies evolve, and so must our values and decisions.

Example: “Men should work, women should stay home—it’s tradition.”

How to Protect Yourself from Anonymous Authority

1. Always Ask: Who Said It?

If you hear “scientists say…”—ask which ones. Are they credible? Do they work for an independent body or a commercial interest?

Pro tip: Google their name and check whether the study is peer-reviewed.

2. Seek Source Material

If someone claims “studies prove…”, look for the actual study. Trustworthy sources link directly to evidence, not just paraphrased sound bites.

Use tools like:

Google Scholar

PubMed

ResearchGate

3. Compare Multiple Sources

Don’t rely on one outlet or one voice. Real truth emerges from diversity of perspectives, not echo chambers.

4. Identify Red Flags

Watch for:

Passive voice: “It is believed that…”

No direct quotes or citations

Overuse of vague terms like “experts,” “studies,” or “many believe”

These are all signs of information without foundation.

5. Separate Fact from Opinion

An expert’s personal view is still just an opinion—unless backed by data, replication, and peer consensus.

Why Critical Thinking Is Your Best Defense

We live in an age where influence is invisible, algorithms amplify falsehoods, and narratives are engineered to feel like facts. Anonymous authority thrives in this environment.

But if you ask the right questions, seek reliable evidence, and stay skeptical of faceless claims, you’ll be far less vulnerable to manipulation.

Think critically, question deeply, and never accept “truth” without transparency.

[clumsypuppy]

act 4 :(

@chipper-smol and i came to a realization

[unsolicited-opinions]

Feelings Don’t Care About Your Facts

Have you noticed that a lot of people on social media don't ever feel compelled to explain themselves?

You've seen this, right?

The folks who proclaim a strong moral view on a controversial topic...then use any excuse to avoid supporting it when they get any polite pushback or questions? The way personal feelings are elevated above objective facts or reasoning? The way they avoid or shut down any meaningful discussion?

I think this is caused by a set of related ideas and biases which are in ascendence and I think younger generations are more vulnerable to being manipulated by bad actors who capitalize on them.

Before we get into that, let's look at some of the ways this phenomenon manifests on social media...and the sorts of biases/concepts at play.

___

"I’m just speaking my truth."

Translation: "Challenging the conclusions I draw from my emotional experience is immoral."

This converts subjective perception into absolute truth, which not only discourages fact-checking, counterpoints, or curiosity, but labels them as oppressive.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning, Subjective Validation

___

"I don't have the emotional labor for this."

Translation: "I don't want be feel challenged, only validated."

This frames disengagement as a righteous act of self-care, rather than avoidance of intellectual discomfort.

Bias/Concept: Therapeutic Culture

___

"I feel attacked."

Translation: "You’ve introduced an idea that unsettles me."

This reframes an intellectual disagreement as personal harm, making the speaker immune to critique.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning

___

"That’s problematic"

Too often, this means "This topic made me feel bad, conflicted, or uncertain - and I don’t want to examine why."

It shuts down discussion without defining terms or explaining logic. It implies moral failure without needing to explain the moral reasoning.

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Virtue Signaling

___

"Centering [X] is violence."

Translation: "I disagree with your priorities and framing that as harm makes me morally right."

This uses inflated, exaggerated, hyperbolic language to shut down any competing narratives or uncomfortable truths.

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Emotional Reasoning

___

"It's not my job to educate you."

Translation: "I don’t want to explain, defend, or support my belief. That would risk them being challenged on their merits. I just want my feelings validated and for my community to affirm I have expressed the correct views."

This avoids meaningful dialogue by asserting moral high ground and demanding deference...without reciprocity.

Bias/Concept: Virtue Signaling, Social Identity Theory

___

"As a [victim identity], I shouldn’t have to…"

Translation: "My group affiliation makes my views untouchable, questioning them makes you a bigot."

This uses identity to shield ideas from scrutiny. Lived experience becomes a veto power over disagreement.

Bias/Concept: Social Identity Theory, Motte and Bailey

___

"This is trauma-informed."

Translation: "You can’t question this without being insensitive"

This weaponizes therapeutic language to preempt dissent. (My therapist HATES this one.)

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Therapeutic Culture

___

"That’s giving [insert negative vibe or label]"

Translation: "Your argument feels like something I’ve been told to distrust"

This uses emotional associations instead of logic to delegitimize a person or point.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning, Subjective Validation

___

Do you see it?

Facts which conflict with feelings aren’t debated - they’re deemed hostile, even violent.

What all of these have in common is the primacy of emotion over reason.

Emotion isn’t the start of a thought for the people who make a habit of these behaviors - it's a substitute for thinking.

I don’t believe this shift is driven by malice or conscious dishonesty. Most people haven’t stopped caring about truth - they’ve simply come to discern what truth is through emotional resonance instead of through evidence or reasoning.

"Truth" now arrives on screens dressed in vibes and aesthetic cues tailored for their existing biases, bypassing critical thought and offering the dopamine-releasing comfort of certainty without the messy, time-consuming burden of understanding.

When Emotion Becomes Authority

Here's a recent example which is getting some deserved mockery in the last day or so:

I know, I know. listening to Theo Von talk about war is like listening a possum try to to sell you on cryptocurrency.

Scratch that - Theo Von is what we'd expect to see if a pair of Truck Nutz were to gain sentience in a laboratory accident.

Theo couldn't speak for his generation any more than a broken Roomba could speak for Artificial General Intelligence, but he's doing something here which is alarmingly and increasingly common for his generation of media personalities. He's using his feelings as a replacement for thinking.

...it feels to me...it just feels to me like it's a genocide that's happening...

Theo doesn’t check facts, definitions, sources, or context because he doesn’t have to. He just invokes a vibe, a moral mood. "It feels like genocide." That’s enough.

Theo has 3.9 million subscribers on YouTube. Estimates suggest his total reach is about 16.2 million people.

The Era of Vibe-Governed Reality

In 2025, truth is not discerned though evidence or reasoning, but through emotional resonance.

Feelings are like the new science, but they're peer-reviewed only by your immediate social circle and validated by the count of reshares.

This is NOT a crotchety right-wing Fox News viewer shaking his fist at clouds and ranting about "kids these days."

This isn't even a critique of liberalism or leftism (because I'm a lifelong left-leaning liberal who grew up in a liberal/socialist family).

It's an examination of what has become a common strategy for mass manipulation which is alarmingly effective, especially with younger generations.

The Water We Swim In

Political operatives and influlence campaigns from every perspective are capitalizing on it, too. Influence campaigns from Russia, Iran, and Qatar; PACs; lobbyist firms...everybody - and we don't really notice these maipulations any longer. Why don't we notice them?

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water? -David Foster Wallace

We don't notice because we're swimming in them.

Every day, we see provocative social media posts which prioritize shock value and emotional impact, aiming to capture attention and convey political stances through intense feelings rather than through facts or reasoned arguments.

Appeals to emotion have been used to bypass logic and reasoning for millennia.

You're probably familiar with these:

Every time anyone ever said "think of the children," you're supposed to clutch your pearls in fear and horror.

US War propaganda in WWII used emotional appeals like "I WANT YOU" or addressed attrocities meant to hit Americans in their emotional center.

Joseph Goebbel's speaches and films used fear, disgust, and resentment to enflame existing negative German feelings against Jews and other minorities.

Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe constructed scenes of immense emotional intensity to provoke outrage and sympathy, especially among white Northern readers in hopes of galvinizing anti-slavery sentiment.

So appeals to emotion aren't new and aren't always dishonest.

What's new is the increasing, overwhelming spread of this way of reaching conclusions in our public discourse replacing other modes of communication, other means of persuasion, and other ways of "knowing" anything.

What's new is that our post-truth, postmodern academic models validate this.

What's new is how this is being weaponized against us, especially younger generations.

How We Turned "I Feel" Into the New "I Know"

This shift didn’t happen overnight. It’s the product of decades of cultural, technological, and psychological changes converging to create a perfect storm where feelings have become a replacement for thinking.

First, there’s the growing cultural emphasis on authenticity and personal experience as the highest forms of truth. This began as a perfectly reasonable corrective to rigid institutional authority and exclusionary narratives but has morphed into a worldview where subjective emotion is treated as inherently more valid than objective evidence.

At the same time, therapeutic culture expanded its reach beyond therapy offices into everyday life, encouraging people to view disagreements as trauma, debates as emotional violence, and intellectual challenge as psychological harm. The result of this is a protective reflex to avoid uncomfortable facts or nuanced arguments that might trigger emotional distress.

If this sounds familiar, note that it's something I've touched on before. The people doing this habitually don't take their positions based on moral principles, facts, context, nuance or reasoning because what motivates them is emotional comfort.

(Experiment: Keep this idea in mind while you're scrolling online and see it that rings true when people will not or cannot support their assertions.)

Social media platforms are engineered to maximize engagement, right? The fastest way to do that is by appealing directly to emotion—especially outrage, fear, and identity affirmation. Algorithms reward the most emotionally charged content because it keeps users scrolling, sharing, and commenting. Nuance, complexity, or even honest uncertainty rarely go viral; they don’t light up dopamine circuits the same way.

That's bad enough for our mental health, our intellects, and our public discourse, but the greatest danger is in how these emotional shortcuts to baseless conclusions create fertile ground for bad actors who want to manipulate public opinion en masse.

Your Feels, Their Power: A Beginner’s Guide to Being Played

Whether it’s state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, political operatives, or interest groups, these manipulators know exactly how to weaponize the primacy of emotion.

Russian Interference in the 2024 U.S. Elections

In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. elections, Russian state actors engaged in disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining Democratic candidates and bolstering Republican ones. These efforts included spreading false narratives about candidates Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, such as fabricated stories of personal misconduct. The campaigns utilized social media platforms to disseminate emotionally charged content that resonated with specific voter demographics.

Operation Overload Targeting USAID

A Russian disinformation campaign known as "Operation Overload" targeted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by producing AI-generated fake news videos. One such video falsely claimed that USAID paid Hollywood celebrities to promote Ukrainian President Zelensky. This content gained significant traction after being shared by high-profile individuals on social media, illustrating how emotional manipulation can amplify disinformation.

Far-Right Exploitation of Social Media Platforms

Far-right groups have effectively used platforms like Instagram and TikTok to disseminate emotionally charged content targeting young audiences. By leveraging visually engaging media and exploiting platform algorithms, these groups spread divisive messages that often go unchecked due to inadequate content moderation.

Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior in Anti-Vaccine Campaign

During the COVID-19 pandemic, coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) networks spread anti-vaccine misinformation across social media platforms. These networks used fake and duplicate accounts to amplify emotionally charged narratives, undermining public health efforts and exploiting fears related to the pandemic.

Bad actors craft messages designed not to inform or persuade through reason but to resonate emotionally - often through fear, anger, or identity-based grievance.

These messages bypass critical thinking by activating deeply held feelings or tribal loyalties.

Younger generations, raised in a world flooded with emotional messaging and taught to prioritize feelings as a moral compass, are especially vulnerable.

Social media doesn’t just deliver content, it delivers community validation. Likes, shares, and emojis, no shit, reinforce emotional responses as truths.

This isn’t just an accidental byproduct. It’s a deliberate strategy and it's been developed to an art form.

Polarization: By amplifying outrage and framing complex issues as zero-sum battles of good vs. evil, manipulators ensure people become entrenched in their “side” and reject any nuance.

Echo Chambers: Algorithms funnel users into filter bubbles where their emotional beliefs are constantly reinforced and opposing views are demonized or erased.

Identity Weaponization: Bad actors exploit identity politics to turn social groups into ideological fortresses where dissent is branded as betrayal or bigotry, shutting down dialogue and scrutiny.

Emotional Hijacking: They flood social feeds with rapid-fire emotional content, making thoughtful reflection impossible and replacing reasoned debate with knee-jerk reactions.

The result is a feedback loop. Emotional responses breed more emotional content, which breeds more disengagement from facts, nuance, or evidence...and the cycle repeats.

If you wonder why almost every attempt to have honest conversations about politics, culture, or identity have become so fraught and fractious, this is why.

So what can we do about it?

We’re definitely not going to get the platofrms to change their algorithms.

We’re not going to manage to out-meme every bit of authoritarian / antisemitic / bigoted propaganda.

We can't stop people from replacing thinking with feeling.

Maybe, though, we can push back in meaningful ways by starting with how we think, speak, and engage.

Feelings Are Real - But They’re Not Facts

Start with yourself. Recognize that emotions matter, but they don’t get the final word. Treat your emotional reactions as data, not conclusions.

Ask: Why am I reacting this way? Is there more to the story? Your habitual curiosity can interrupt the feedback loop.

Seek Discomfort (The Good Kind)

If everything you read confirms what you already believe, you’re not learning, you’re marinating. Deliberately engage with credible voices you disagree with. Not to convert, but to understand. Intellectual discomfort isn't harm, it’s a way to grow.

Don’t Outsource Your Thinking

If your arguments are mostly reshares and TikTok duets, you might be mistaking social validation for understanding. Read full articles. Watch entire interviews. When an assertion really appeals to you, ask yourself: "What evidence is this based on?" Then fact-check the evidence.

Value Nuance - Even When It’s Boring

Nuance doesn’t trend. It’s slow, hard, and less emotionally satisfying than hot takes.

It's’s also where truth lives. Learn to sit with complexity. Practice saying things like "It’s complicated," "I’m not sure yet," or "Both things can be true.

Stop Feeding the Rage Machine

Every time you rage-share a headline without reading it, or dunk on someone for clout, you are feeding the same system you claim to hate. Don’t give your attention to people or platforms that reward outrage over insight. (I need to work on this.)

Reward Substance Over Vibes

Like, comment on, and share posts that show integrity, humility, and reasoned thinking - even if they’re not flashy. That’s how we might tilt the algorithm. Influence is a numbers game. Elevate voices that model real thought.

Normalize Saying "I Don’t Know"

Admitting uncertainty isn't weakness, it’s maturity. It’s how real conversations happen. When someone asks for your take, it’s okay to say, "I’m still figuring it out" or "I want to learn more first." You're not required to have a take on everything.

Ask Better Questions

When someone makes an emotional claim, don’t attack - ask. Not "How could you believe that?" but "What led you to that view?"

Good faith questions can defuse bad faith conversations.

Protect Conversations Like They Matter (Because They Do)

Modeling intellectual honesty and emotional maturity in your own circles has a ripple effect. Be the one who brings it back to evidence, back to reason, back to shared humanity. Conversations are culture-shaping.

Remember That Culture Is a Team Sport

We got into this mess together, and we’ll get out the same way. Culture is just the cumulative effect of individual choices repeated at scale. Choose better. Think better. Talk better.

You don’t have to be louder than the noise.

You just have to be saner.

[beaft]

i don't get involved in transandrophobia discourse because it always seems to devolve into bickering about the implications and definitions of specific words, which is fun if you're a philosophy student and less fun if you're a trans person just trying to peacefully exist online. but last week i did come really close to responding to a post that argued it was Fine for trans women to say "i hate transmascs", but it was Not Fine for transmascs to say "i hate trans women", and i don't know, man. i think maybe neither of those things are Fine. i think maybe it sucks to say that you hate an entire category of trans people no matter what your gender personally is

[otaku553]

Procrastination doodles of sabo for the king sabo au :)

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

Do you think it is possible for the other trolls to gaslight Eridan into do the murder for the right cause? E.g. not like the murderstuck in the canon but guiding his murderous direction to align with the purpose, using him as a disposable glass cannon and a cannon fodder to take down enemies? but not easily disposable due to seadweller's physical strength and his fighting skills. Not the optimal way to handle him but given that he needs some presence of others how will this scenario go?

no because i believe eridan is the specific type of idiot that you can't actually manipulate because he doesn't listen to people. god bless 🫡

[marzipanandminutiae]

brought to you by "The Myth of Lesbian Impunity: Capital Laws from 1270 to 1791" by Louis Crompton

when you first start studying queer history: sapphic acts have basically never been criminalized in any western society! so queer women have always had it easier than queer men!

when you delve even the slightest bit deeper: why do we still believe this

(OP cannot control who does and does not reblog this post, but she firmly believes that trans women are women)

[slutforpringles]

adds to list of reasons why dumping Daniel when Red Bull did post-Singapore was so unnecessary, cruel and self-defeating and not the solve-all solution many made it out to be at the time 😒😤💅🏻

via: Fox Sports | ‘If you left Ricciardo there…’ Blame game over Red Bull driver fiasco takes turn

[coalballbaby]

I could write a killer prowl fic where he does nothing substantial except spend eight pages straight boiling in his crawling existence post-war forced to move from one day to the next and realizing (w/ no small amount of dread) that this too is progress and that like it or not he has to keep living. and get employed as a pilot

[mayasaura]

It's a bit funny too how carefully John avoids thinking or talking about G— in his flashbacks. When he can't avoid it entirely, he obfuscates with a joke.

What are you afraid of seeing, if you looked directly at him, John?

[well-welly-well-belly-belle]

anyway, Occam's Razor doesn't actually say that the *simplest* solution is usually correct. if it did then the explanation for most things would just be "wizards n' warlocks, probably" so, what *does* it say? That the solution requiring the *fewest assumptions* is often correct It's not an appeal against complexity, it's meant to shave away conspiracy theorizing, black-and-white thinking, and circular logic, and appeal towards evidence-first reasoning

[dykephan]

if you still aren't pirating your sims games at this point i think you're a lost cause and a loser

[g1ngerbeer]

do you think they noticed a change, the first few loops. i think they did. because how could they not, cheng xiaoshi and qiao ling, the two closest friends lu guang has, seeing him walk out of the room through a camera shutter and re-enter changed. diminished, faded, sad, the worn and cracking face of an old photograph. more and more tired each time he dives, further and further back with each attempt. every time a failure. and even as he lets the tides of time weather him more - render him a ghost, it feels like sometimes - even as lu guang changes more and more from the person he used to be, so too does that moment of disconnect in his friends’ eyes shorten and fade. because they don’t know him anymore. the golden stretch of time he spends by their sides before it all goes wrong is sliced thinner and thinner with every photo he uses, his touch blurring the memory with blood. each time he fails they know him less - the first him, the one unburdened by the terrible knowledge he now holds and the weight of too many failures.

soon they will never have known him at all.

Because you would notice if your best friend time travelled from a horrible future, but not if he travelled back so far he erased the person he once was (the person you knew) (the person you loved, first. before you loved this newer-older transparent version, never knowing a difference.)

(and this too is a loss to be grieved, he thinks sometimes in the dead of night to the sound of soft breathing in the bunk below, selfishly. but it is worth it if cheng xiaoshi lives.)

(the death of everything lu guang ever was is worth it if it means cheng xiaoshi lives.)

[headslikekites]

hu! tao!

[marshemillow]

The thing about sex negative misogynists that really gets me is the fact that they justify their own logic with circular reasoning.

Women can't consent to sex work!

How do we know they aren't consenting? Because they're doing sex work!

The idea that women can genuinely give informed consent to be sex workers is wrongfully discarded.

[asairayn]

woah art! for the pieces left behind by @thedemonsurfer / @thedemonscrawler this time! which i wasn't even planning on doing until i realized just how similar this art could be to literally my first art of sunk cost fallacy! so here we are :)