Deceivers hijack our trust in precision by attaching specific numbers (e.g., "13.5% of customers") to their claims. This gives a "patina of rigor and understanding," making us less likely to question the source or validity of the information itself, even if the number is arbitrary.

Humans crave control. When faced with uncertainty, the brain compensates by creating narratives and seeing patterns where none exist. This explains why a conspiracy theory about a planned event can feel more comforting than a random, chaotic one—the former offers an illusion of understandable order.

The online world, particularly platforms like the former Twitter, is not a true reflection of the real world. A small percentage of users, many of whom are bots, generate the vast majority of content. This creates a distorted and often overly negative perception of public sentiment that does not represent the majority view.

The human brain resists ambiguity and seeks closure. When a significant, factual event occurs but is followed by a lack of official information (often for legitimate investigative reasons), this creates an "open loop." People will naturally invent narratives to fill that void, giving rise to conspiracy theories.

To combat misinformation, present learners with two plausible-sounding pieces of information—one true, one false—and ask them to determine which is real. This method powerfully demonstrates their own fallibility and forces them to learn the cues that differentiate truth from fiction.

AI models tend to be overly optimistic. To get a balanced market analysis, explicitly instruct AI research tools like Perplexity to act as a "devil's advocate." This helps uncover risks, challenge assumptions, and makes it easier for product managers to say "no" to weak ideas quickly.

When confronting seemingly false facts in a discussion, arguing with counter-facts is often futile. A better approach is to get curious about the background, context, and assumptions that underpin their belief, as most "facts" are more complex than they appear.

We are cognitively wired with a "truth bias," causing us to automatically assume that what we see and hear is true. We only engage in skeptical checking later, if at all. Scammers exploit this default state, ensnaring us before our slower, more deliberate thinking can kick in.

The AI debate is becoming polarized as influencers and politicians present subjective beliefs with high conviction, treating them as non-negotiable facts. This hinders balanced, logic-based conversations. It is crucial to distinguish testable beliefs from objective truths to foster productive dialogue about AI's future.