Volume I is the core catalog of ten mechanisms that capture attention and belief. Volume II is the bestiary of self-worth and action: comparison, perfectionism, urgency, control, and neighboring patterns. This text is volume III: eight creatures about judgment and argument. Here the bestiary comes closest to what critical-thinking courses usually call cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
As before, “parasite” is a metaphor, not a diagnosis and not an exhaustive taxonomy. Each creature follows the rule: unique silhouette, unique physics, visual metaphor that explains the mechanism.
Key takeaways
Volume III closes the “textbook” gaps. Anchoring, sunk cost, hindsight, framing, authority, straw man, the commitment ratchet, and the planning fallacy are exactly what was missing for the series to sit beside Kahneman / OpenStax / informal-fallacy lists.
This is still not a fallacy glossary. A classic fallacy is a failure in an argument. A parasite here is also a self-sustaining exchange: feed, disguise, cost to the host, weak spot.
Judgment and argument feed volumes I–II. Framing amplifies fear and outrage; authority feeds intellectual laziness; the straw man partners with superiority and labeling; sunk cost holds people in a cycle with guilt and postponement.
Further expansion should be selective. After 28 creatures it is more useful to refine bridges and practices than to mint synonyms.
How to read this catalog
For each: form, what it feeds on, disguise, what it destroys, weak spot. Research nearby is ballast, not proof that “a harpoon lives in the brain.”
If you are new to the series, start with volume I: parasite criteria, three levels, and immune hygiene.
Catalog: creatures 21–28
The anchoring parasite
Form: first-number harpoon. A creature whose long harpoon drives into the first named figure, price, or version of events. While the harpoon holds, later estimates spin around that point — even if it was random.
Anatomical quirk: argument (“that’s wrong”) almost never pulls the harpoon out. Only an explicit second, independent reference point weakens it.
What it feeds on: the first available number, the first vivid example, the first wording of the question.
Tversky and Kahneman showed anchoring in estimates: even a random number shifts later answers. In negotiation, hiring, diagnosis, and news, the first frame often decides more than the whole later analysis. The parasite does not argue with facts — it makes facts compare themselves to the stuck harpoon.
Disguise: “I just need a starting point,” “everyone has to begin somewhere.”
What it destroys: independent calibration — the ability to judge magnitude without clinging to the first figure.
Weak spot: name another reference point before answering. “If the first number had been X instead of Y — what range would I give?” Two points break the harpoon’s monopoly.
The sunk-cost parasite
Form: well of investment. A creature sits at the bottom of a well, wrapped in chains of already spent coins, hours, and promises. The more has been thrown down, the harder it is to climb out — though rationally the past outlay cannot be recovered.
Anatomical quirk: the chains fasten not to future benefit but to past contribution. Every “just a little more” lengthens the chain.
What it feeds on: time, money, status already invested, and the self-justification “I’ve put so much into this.”
Sunk cost is a classic of behavioral economics and CT textbooks: people continue a project because abandoning the investment hurts, not because the future pays. The parasite dresses loss-aversion as “responsibility” and keeps the host in the pit beside volume II’s guilt.
Disguise: perseverance, responsibility, “I’m not someone who quits halfway.”
What it destroys: clean-slate decisions — evaluating the future without the price of the past.
Weak spot: a question only about the future. “If I were starting from zero today — would I invest more?” If not, past chains are not an argument.
The hindsight parasite
Form: rear-view mirror. A creature whose face is a huge mirror: everything that has already happened looks “obvious in advance.” It barely looks forward.
Anatomical quirk: after the outcome, the mirror rewrites past confidence. The host sincerely remembers always having thought that.
What it feeds on: a known result and the need to look right after the fact.
Hindsight bias is well studied: knowing the outcome inflates predictability and ruins postmortems — “you should have seen it.” The parasite kills learning: if everything was obvious, there is no reason to update the model.
Disguise: insight, experience, “I told you so.”
What it destroys: an honest account of the uncertainty in which the decision was made before the outcome.
Weak spot: write the forecast before the result. Without a dated draft the mirror has nothing to rewrite — or the rewrite becomes visible at once.
The framing parasite
Form: living frame. A frame-creature that hangs different moldings on the same picture: “loss,” “gain,” “threat,” “chance.” The picture does not change — what the host is willing to do does.
Anatomical quirk: the frame feeds on emotion from wording, not from content. Repainting the molding is cheaper than changing facts.
What it feeds on: packaging the same substance in different words and accents.
Tversky and Kahneman’s framing effect: “90% survival” and “10% mortality” are one math, different behavior. Propaganda and marketing live on this parasite; beside it, volume I’s fear and outrage grow stronger.
Disguise: clear presentation, “I’m just explaining accessibly,” good storytelling.
What it destroys: judgment invariance — recognizing one substance under different wrappers.
Weak spot: retell in the opposite frame. “How does the same thing sound as a loss / as a gain — and does my conclusion move?” If it jumps, the frame decided, not the picture.
The authority parasite
Form: seal-mantle. A creature in a heavy mantle with a glowing status seal. While the seal burns, the host lowers scrutiny: “if a status-bearer said it, I needn’t unpack it.”
Anatomical quirk: the seal works even without topic expertise. Form, title, coat, logo, or a confident tone is enough.
What it feeds on: status, titles, confident delivery, and other people’s readiness to outsource checking.
Cialdini describes authority as a principle of influence; in CT it neighbors appeal to authority. Authority is useful as a time-saving heuristic; it becomes a parasite when it replaces a model. Direct ally of volume I’s intellectual laziness.
Disguise: respect for experts, modesty, “I’m not a specialist.”
What it destroys: proportionate checking of claims — especially outside the speaker’s real competence.
Weak spot: separate status from argument. “What concrete argument remains if I remove the title?” If nothing — the seal was feeding.
The straw-man parasite
Form: substitute scarecrow. A creature builds a simplified doll from the interlocutor’s words and furiously defeats it. The real opponent stands nearby untouched.
Anatomical quirk: the cruder the doll, the easier the victory and the fuller the parasite. A complex opposing thesis is inedible to it.
What it feeds on: a simplified, distorted version of someone else’s position — especially in arguments and feeds.
Straw man is a classic informal fallacy. In the bestiary it is memetic: it spreads well because beating a doll delivers superiority and outrage to “our side.” Volume II’s labeling is almost always nearby.
Disguise: “I’m just taking it to its logical end,” wit, “exposure.”
What it destroys: the steel-man — the ability to argue with the best formulation of the other view.
Weak spot: steel-man rule. “State the position so the opponent says: yes, that’s mine.” While the doll is funnier than the thesis, the scarecrow feeds.
The commitment-ratchet parasite
Form: consent ratchet. A toothed creature: every “yes,” like, signature, and small step turns the gear forward. The teeth do not allow reverse — “you already said / already started / already ours.”
Anatomical quirk: small consents are cheaper than big ones, but their sum closes the exit. The parasite loves escalation of commitment.
What it feeds on: the need to be consistent and the fear of looking like someone who flipped.
Cialdini’s commitment and consistency: after a public or even tiny agreement, people pull behavior and beliefs into line so as not to contradict themselves. Useful for habits; parasitic when it holds someone in a bad deal, group, or self-image.
Disguise: integrity, reliability, “I’m a person of my word.”
What it destroys: the right to update a position without losing face.
Weak spot: a predeclared right of review. “In two weeks I will officially revisit this decision — and that is procedure, not weakness.” The ratchet weakens when exit is built into the rules.
The planning-fallacy parasite
Form: shrinking blueprint. A creature draws a beautiful plan in which timelines accordion-shrink: everything looks shorter, smoother, and more controllable than it is. When reality expands, the blueprint blames “external interference.”
Anatomical quirk: inside — a best-case script; outside — a calendar that does not know queues, illness, and other people’s delays.
What it feeds on: an internal optimistic scenario and neglect of external statistics for similar tasks.
The planning fallacy (Kahneman, Lovallo): people systematically underestimate their project timelines even knowing that “things usually take longer.” Neighbor of urgency and control; enemy of an honest buffer.
Disguise: ambition, self-belief, “if we plan well, we’ll make it.”
What it destroys: realistic planning and trust in one’s own deadlines — after a streak of misses the host either burns out or stops promising at all.
Weak spot: outside view. “How long did similar tasks take for me or others last time — and what buffer do I add?” The blueprint hates a reference class.
Map of the third set
| # | Parasite | Form | Core mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Anchoring | First-number harpoon | The first figure pulls all estimates |
| 22 | Sunk cost | Well of investment | The past holds a bad future |
| 23 | Hindsight | Rear-view mirror | After the outcome, all was “obvious” |
| 24 | Framing | Living frame | Packaging changes the conclusion |
| 25 | Authority | Seal-mantle | Status replaces checking |
| 26 | Straw man | Substitute scarecrow | Victory over a distorted position |
| 27 | Commitment ratchet | Consent ratchet | Small yeses close the exit |
| 28 | Planning fallacy | Shrinking blueprint | Optimism instead of a reference class |
How volume III joins I and II
Typical bridges:
- Framing → fear / outrage. A “threat” or “betrayal” frame turns emotion on faster than fact.
- Authority → intellectual laziness. The seal saves thinking.
- Straw man → superiority / labeling. Easy to beat a caricature and stick a stamp.
- Sunk cost → guilt / postponement / perfectionism. “So much invested” keeps the pit.
- Ratchet → belonging. Public “we” costs more than revision.
- Planning fallacy → urgency / control. A compressed blueprint breeds artificial hurry and an illusion of control.
- Hindsight → superiority. “I knew” fortifies the lookout tower after the fact.
- Anchoring → false certainty. The first figure pretends to be solid knowledge.
The practical rule is the same: hit not only the bias name, but the cost of another behavior — a second measure, a future-only question, a dated forecast, the opposite frame, an argument without the title, a steel formulation, a right of review, a reference class.
Volume III and “standard” critical thinking
Laid beside a typical CT set:
- Covered by volumes I–III: confirmation, availability/fear, tribalism, stereotyping/labels, anchoring, sunk cost, hindsight, framing, authority, straw man, commitment, planning fallacy — plus volume II’s motivational patterns.
- Still outside (and need not enter): gambler’s fallacy, conjunction fallacy, finer statistical traps, a full roster of rhetorical devices.
The bestiary need not become a 100-name encyclopedia. Its strength is recognizable forms and weak spots. Volume III makes the series compatible with CT classroom practice without turning it into a dry glossary.
FAQ
Is this the “correct” list of biases?
There is no single canon. Textbooks cut the field differently. Our criterion is mechanism + disguise + cost + practice, not Wikipedia completeness.
Why forms if scientific names exist?
Names are forgotten. A form that performs the mechanism in plain sight helps you notice the pattern in daily life. The scientific name stays in the text as a link to the literature.
Is a volume IV needed?
Only if a new group of mechanisms with unique silhouettes appears — for example statistical traps or parasites of the digital environment. For now the visual catalog of 21–28 and short “how it acts” scenes are more useful.
What’s next
Portraits for 21–28 ship with this text in the same forest 3D language as the earlier volumes.
Series map: volume I → volume II → volume III. Nearby guides: critical thinking, architecture of beliefs, and how propaganda works.