Political arguments often stall because people use loaded terms like 'critical race theory' with entirely different meanings. Before debating, ask the other person to define the term. This simple step often reveals that the core disagreement is based on a misunderstanding, not a fundamental clash of values.

Salient emotional events feel vivid and true, boosting our confidence in the memory. However, this confidence is often misleading. Each time we recall and "reconstruct" these memories, we create more opportunities for errors to creep in, making them factually less reliable than we believe.

We live in "communities of knowledge" where expertise is distributed. Simply being part of a group where others understand a topic (e.g., politics, technology) creates an inflated sense that we personally understand it, contributing to the illusion of individual knowledge.

The more people learn about a subject, the more they realize how much they don't know. This contradicts the idea that expertise leads to arrogance. Novices, who are unaware of a field's complexity, are often the most overconfident.

Extremist figures are not organic phenomena but are actively amplified by social media algorithms that prioritize incendiary content for engagement. This process elevates noxious ideas far beyond their natural reach, effectively manufacturing influence for profit and normalizing extremism.

In politics, the perception of strength and decisiveness can be more electorally powerful than being correct but appearing weak or compromising. This principle explains why a political party might maintain a hardline stance that is unpopular, as the image of strength itself resonates more with voters than the nuance of being “right.”

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.

Most people (88%) agree on fundamental values but remain silent, fearing ostracization. This allows the most extreme 5% of voices to dominate 90% of public discourse, creating a false impression of widespread disagreement and polarization where one doesn't exist.

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.