Do you think I am a person who can be tricked into believing something just by reading it or seeing it? Definitely wrong! I am a person who doesn’t make the final judgment and then makes arguments accordingly that they fit the judgment. If I have any assets at all, this is non-adherence to cognitive biases, fallacies, and formal fallacies. I demand evidence, internal logic, and arguments. So do you want to read how a skeptic turned to the believer?
Please make note that this was my evolution from a kid to a rational adult, therefore it contains pretty stupid strategies (childish) in this step-by-step learning.
Cognitive biases, fallacies, and formal fallacies. What are these?
Cognitive biases are inherent tendencies that lead individuals to make decisions or judgments in ways that deviate from rationality or logic. These biases stem from the brain’s attempt to simplify information processing. They often rely on mental shortcuts or heuristics to make quick judgments. While these shortcuts can be useful for rapid decision-making, they also lead to systematic errors. For instance, confirmation bias is a common cognitive bias where individuals tend to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while disregarding evidence that contradicts them.
This can create echo chambers, especially in the age of social media. People consume content that reinforces their opinions, leading to more polarized thinking. Another example is the availability bias, where individuals overestimate the importance of information that is easily recalled, such as recent news stories or highly publicized events. This bias can skew perception of risk. This causes people to believe that dramatic but rare occurrences, like plane crashes or shark attacks, are more common than they actually are.
Your objectivity destroyed by them
The impact of cognitive biases is far-reaching, influencing not only personal decisions but also public discourse, political opinions, and policy-making. Anchoring bias, for example, occurs when individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information they receive (the “anchor”) when making decisions. This can affect everything from salary negotiations to courtroom judgments. Meanwhile, hindsight bias, the tendency to see events as having been predictable after they have occurred, can distort our understanding of past events. This leads to misplaced blame or overconfidence in future predictions. These biases are often unconscious, making them particularly difficult to counteract, even when individuals are aware of their existence.
In contrast, fallacies are errors in reasoning that arise not from the way information is processed, but from flaws in the structure or content of an argument. Informal fallacies typically involve errors in the content or context of an argument. One of the most well-known informal fallacies is the ad hominem attack, where instead of addressing the argument itself, a person attacks the character of the individual making the argument. Another informal fallacy is the straw man fallacy, where someone misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to refute. For example, if someone argues for environmental regulation, an opponent might exaggerate their position by claiming they want to “shut down all industry,” even if that was never stated. These types of fallacies are commonly used in political debates, advertisements, and media. This often distorts the truth to manipulate public opinion.
Formal fallacies
Formal fallacies, on the other hand, involve errors in the logical structure of an argument. These occur when the form of an argument itself is invalid, regardless of the truth of the premises. A classic example of a formal fallacy is “affirming the consequent.” In this fallacy, someone assumes that because a particular outcome has occurred, the only possible cause must be true. For instance, the statement “If it rains, the streets will be wet. The streets are wet, therefore it rained,” ignores the possibility of other causes for the wet streets, such as a street cleaning or a water main break. Another formal fallacy is “denying the antecedent,” where someone incorrectly assumes that if one condition is false, the other condition must also be false. These types of errors can be subtle but lead to flawed conclusions in arguments that appear logically sound at first glance.
The intersection of cognitive biases and fallacies
The intersection of cognitive biases and fallacies plays a significant role in shaping public discourse, decision-making, and critical thinking. In a world where information is rapidly disseminated, often without thorough analysis, the presence of biases and fallacies can lead to widespread misinformation. People may fall victim to the bandwagon effect. This is a cognitive bias where individuals adopt beliefs or behaviors because they perceive that others are doing the same, without critically evaluating the merits of those beliefs. In combination with the slippery slope fallacy – where someone assumes that a small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (and often negative) events – such biases and fallacies can fuel irrational fears or unfounded societal trends.
Combating cognitive biases and fallacies requires deliberate effort and education in critical thinking. Understanding that biases like the sunk cost fallacy – where people continue investing in a losing proposition because of the resources already committed – can influence decisions helps individuals and organizations avoid costly mistakes. Similarly, being able to identify when an argument relies on a false dichotomy, presenting only two extreme options when others are available, empowers people to engage more effectively in debates and discussions. In essence, recognizing and mitigating the effects of cognitive biases and fallacies is crucial for fostering more rational, evidence-based decision-
Step by step: There are politicians and that’s it
When I was young, there used to be a strong right-left distinction in European politics. The politicians were arguing, and debating. But the first thing in this “skeptic turned believer” transformation was this:
How come only some big party has access to mass mainstream media? I tried to childishly explain that the big parties had some influence and that’s the deal (they just want to omit their competition).
Every Czech businessman was an honest, decent person who made money by the means of law. And access to politics? Why the hell he would have needed it?
In the US, for most self-made billionaires in non-tech, non-inherited fields, it typically takes 20 to 40 years of consistent growth, reinvestment, and expansion to reach billionaire status. The exact time varies depending on the industry and individual success. But the Czech businessmen managed it in a really brisk time after the Velvet Revolution. 5 years and you were a billionaire! So far, no suspicion.
Skeptic turned believer: there are lobbyists
There are lobbyists lobbying for legitimate reasons. They don’t influence the party hierarchy whatsoever.
Those lobbyists may have so mischievous intentions, but these are not worth attention.
I have heard: This company was bought by the third-richest family
Are you kidding me? They must be so stupid, given that they are not on the Forbes list, that the wealth must be managed by someone intelligent.
I don’t believe that such a family exists and that they are so rich.
Strange things happened on the Czech political scene from 2009
Now it was kind of official. With the international fight against corruption (which I didn’t realize who the culprits were), mainstream media started, which was unprecedented, telling us that there are “godfathers”. Those godfathers are being and telling the politicians what to do. This term coined formed Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek.
You do me a favor, I will do you a favor. Yes, it is from the famous movies.
The media had started bombarding us (which was absolutely unprecedented) with who godfather did this and why did it (some criminal acts). Qui bono?
Skeptic turned believer: sorry, kids, there are oligarchs
No, these are godfathers, but they provide their services to someone higher – oligarchs. Who told us – mainstream media.
These godfathers (we would say “crooks” in normal English) are too small, they just mediate the influence, but they serve the oligarchs.
They own whole sectors of the economy because it was “easy” to get rich after the fall of communism. These were the largest wealth transfers since the 1600s.
So those are the people who manipulate the country.
Rockafellers and Rothschilds? Give me a break! They don’t exist
Despite knowing the aforementioned information, I insisted that conspiracies involving the super-rich American families were false, even though I suspected they might be true.
The game-changer came when one really crazy conspiracy theorist pointed out that some Czech medium belonged to the Rothschilds. And I could have easily verified it (by just checking an internet page), and it was proven right. I was stunned.
One significant journalist also pointed out to those influential groups. What made me more convinced was a parliamentary speech of one politician who said there were national and international clientelist structures.
But what really turned a skeptic into a believer? Politico!
Politico is a pro-establishment, very influential medium and one of their suggestions was a book called All the Presidents’ Bankers by Nomi Prins. Of course, banks have some influence, I thought back at the time.
But names such as Rockefellers, Astors, and Vanderbilts were shown throughout the book. Everything is based on the correspondence evidence made by those influential individuals and by the existence of files in the archives.
Nomi Prins recommended America’s 60 Families by Ferdinand Lundberg. He has built his work on a foundation of public financial records, including tax filings, corporate reports, and stockholder information, which he used to trace the financial networks and investments of these influential families. He also drew heavily on government investigations, particularly those conducted by the Federal Trade Commission and various Congressional committees.
Also, Ron Chernow’s The House of Morgan is a notable example, where Chernow uses extensive archival research. This includes personal correspondence, bank records, and interviews, to chart the history and influence of J.P. Morgan & Co. (controlled by the families).
There is not only evidence in letters etc., but also in mainstream media that informed back then (100 years ago).
The top 1% has been, is, and will continue to get richer at a much faster rate compared to other social classes
Morgans (the richest), Vanderbilts, Rockefellers? You won’t find them in the chart. Despite the 1 % was, is, and is going to get rich more multiplied compared to other social classes.
Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have widened dramatically over the past several decades, with the top 1% seeing disproportionately large gains. According to the Congressional Budget Office, from 1979 to 2019, the average after-tax household income for the top 1% grew by 226%. In contrast, income for the middle 60% of households increased by only 47%. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% saw even smaller gains, with income growth of just 85%. This disparity reflects a deepening gap in income distribution, where the wealthiest Americans continue to pull away from the rest of the population.
This trend becomes even more pronounced when examining wealth accumulation. Between 2010 and 2020, U.S. billionaires saw their combined wealth increase by 170%, jumping from $1.3 trillion to over $3.5 trillion, according to Forbes. Meanwhile, median household wealth grew by just 5.37% during the same period. The stock market, real estate, and other investment vehicles, which primarily benefit the wealthy, have seen extraordinary growth, further compounding the wealth of the top 1%.
CEOs desperately need the money
At the same time, CEO pay has skyrocketed relative to the average worker’s wage. The Economic Policy Institute reports that CEO compensation grew by 1,322% between 1978 and 2021, while the typical worker’s pay increased by only 18%. This widening gap between executive pay and worker wages illustrates how corporate structures increasingly favor top earners, while wages for the majority of workers stagnate.
The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recovery also highlighted the unequal distribution of income gains. From 2009 to 2020, the top 1% captured 95% of all income growth in the U.S., while the bottom 90% saw almost no real recovery in their incomes. This imbalance underscores how economic shocks tend to disproportionately affect lower-income groups, while the wealthiest recover quickly, often growing their fortunes during downturns.
The pandemic exacerbated these inequalities. During the COVID-19 crisis, U.S. billionaires saw their wealth surge by $1.7 trillion between March 2020 and November 2021, a 57% increase, according to Americans for Tax Fairness. While millions of Americans faced job losses and financial insecurity, the wealthiest capitalized on market rebounds and stimulus measures that favored asset owners.
Mainstream media claim Rockefellers own nothing. Did they lose it in slot machines?
All of the aforementioned families lost their wealth substantially according to mainstream media. But this goes against the official facts economists provided us.
So did they gamble it away in slot machines? Rockefellers have $11 billion now (despite their fortune, adjusted for inflation, was estimated to be around $318.3 billion in today’s dollars).
Conspiracy theories are messy because created by the secret services
You visit your favorite conspiracy site and find that 90 % of things cannot be true. It is partly given by the fact the secret services create the content and invent other theories (such as the Clinton killings, UFO, and so on), so they like to be so implausible that you quit it.
You must use critical thinking and find out what is true and what is not.
Conclusion: Skeptic turned believer
I have deep understand of people who just flat-out reject conspiracy theories. It costs an effort, critical thinking and the right resources to get on the right pathway.
It were small steps. Just step by step. I started realizing that Iron law of oligarchy applies everywhere (from initially perfect democracy will become a malformed by private interests).
Why do the super-rich control politics everywhere and why do they have to do so?
The super-rich must control politics everywhere because they own critical industries like oil, coal, banks, energy, tech, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture. Oil companies lobby for favorable environmental policies, coal miners fight climate regulations, and banks influence financial laws to protect their profits. Tech giants use their platforms to shape public discourse, while pharmaceutical companies push for healthcare laws that maximize their earnings. Agricultural conglomerates influence food safety standards and trade deals. Each of these sectors is vital to a nation’s economy, giving the wealthy who control them significant leverage over government decisions.
This control extends beyond specific industries. Telecoms, media empires, and the defense industry also hold sway. Media moguls shape public opinion, which indirectly guides political trends and elections. Telecom companies have vested interests in laws regulating information and communication technologies, while defense contractors lobby for increased military spending and security contracts. In every case, these industries rely on political influence to secure policies that protect their interests and profits. By controlling these key sectors, the super-rich ensure that politics remains aligned with their financial goals and economic dominance.
Leave a Reply