Your critical thinking gym
Home
The Commandments
Join the Club
Your critical thinking gym
Over 40 techniques. One goal: move what you believe without you noticing it happened. These are the moves used by governments, parties, and platforms to win without ever winning the argument.
JOIN THE CLUBSix quick answers before you go deep on any single technique.
Communication engineered to move you toward one predetermined conclusion, using selected facts, emotional pressure, or repetition, rather than to inform you and let you decide. The word comes from the Catholic Church's 1622 Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, "the congregation for propagating the faith."
Politicians, oligarchs, and media outlets account for most of the propaganda out there. Rule of thumb: the more autocratic the state, the more likely it's running daily, everywhere, and funded straight from the government. Not every politician and not every outlet uses it, or uses it for the same bad reasons. Telling the difference is exactly what critical thinking is for.
Broadcasters and news agencies (state-run and blatant in autocracies, more often privately owned and subtler in democracies), social platforms, paid influencers, sponsored "news" content, diplomatic messaging, and increasingly, AI-generated content and bot networks.
Real news follows facts wherever they lead. Propaganda starts with the conclusion and works backward, picking, hiding, or bending facts to get there. It also has a much easier time getting broadcast unchallenged in places where freedom of speech and independent journalism are more theory than practice.
Marketing sells you a product and tells you it's an ad. Propaganda sells you a belief and usually hides that it's trying to sell you anything at all.
Power kept, elections shifted, laws passed with less pushback, public money redirected their way, a loyal base secured, and a cleaner image bought abroad.
Every entry works the same way. No academic language. No filler. If a section has nothing real to say, we leave it out instead of padding it.
What the technique is, plus named sub-versions.
How hard this one is to spot, and why.
The mental mechanism it exploits, grounded in real research.
Verified, cross-spectrum, sourced, not hypothetical.
Personal, communicator, and systemic tiers.
What it pairs with, precedes, follows, and gets confused with.
Primary sources and accessible further reading.
Every technique page carries a detectability rating: how hard that move is to catch in real time. Loud techniques (name-calling, glittering generalities) are easy to flag once you know the pattern.
Quiet ones (agenda setting, algorithmic bias) work by omission, shaping what you never see, which makes them far harder to notice even after you've learned the concept. It's not a "how bad is this" score. It's a "how much attention does catching this take" score.
Every technique belongs to one of a handful of clusters. Click through to the full page.
The original seven devices named by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1937-38, plus close relatives added since.
Persuasion through fear, group identity, or dehumanization instead of argument.
Misusing or overwhelming evidence rather than fabricating it.
The work happens in word choice itself.
Depends on mass media, platforms, or coordinated infrastructure.
A different research lineage, borrowed from relationship-abuse psychology and applied to institutions instead of people.
More on this cluster ↓Four techniques, Future Faking, Institutional Gaslighting, Love Bombing, and Cult of Personality, don't come from the classical propaganda-taxonomy research the other clusters draw on.
They're adapted from narcissistic-abuse and relationship-manipulation psychology (Ramani Durvasula and others), applied to political and institutional behavior instead of interpersonal relationships. The pattern, promise a future that never arrives, deny reality until the audience doubts itself, love-bomb supporters into loyalty, build a cult around a leader, was first documented in abusive relationships.
We have witnessed the same pattern appearing at institutional scale. That's a reasonable extrapolation worth naming honestly, not an established political-science finding, so it's flagged here rather than presented as equivalent to the other five clusters.
This isn't a quiz to grade you. It's gamified training: spot the technique, name it, and practice the counter-move until it's second nature.
Do you know ad hominem from ad nauseam?
Bigger tell of a genuine "plain folks" candidate: eating a burger on camera, or a bank account under seven digits?
Can you catch a straw man before the crowd cheers for it?
If any of those made you pause, your critical thinking has room to grow, and that's exactly what the Gym is built for. Get notified when it launches.
Free account. No ads pretending to be content. Just the techniques, the biases, and the training to catch both, straight to your inbox the moment the Gym is live.