
SCARS Manual of Logical Fallacies – 2024
The Range Of Logical Fallacies That Affect Scam Victims and Every Human
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument or decision-making by relying on flawed logic, misleading tactics, or irrelevant information.
Authors:
• Vianey Gonzalez B.Sc(Psych) – Licensed Psychologist Specialty in Crime Victim Trauma Therapy, Neuropsychologist, Certified Deception Professional, Psychology Advisory Panel & Director of the Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc.
• Tim McGuinness, Ph.D. – Anthropologist, Scientist, Director of the Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc.
• Portions from Other Sources
• Based on research by the United States National Institute of Mental Health and other sources
This page will be constantly expanding – visit often!
The links will take the visitor to the website where the item was published. For more visit: ScamsNOW.com and RomanceScamsNOW.com

Introduction
Logical fallacies play a significant role in the cognitive and emotional challenges that scam victims face, both during and after being scammed. These errors in reasoning can make victims more susceptible to manipulation by scammers, causing them to ignore warning signs or justify the scammer’s behavior. Even after recognizing they have been scammed, these fallacies can inhibit their recovery, leading to prolonged emotional distress and difficulty in moving forward. By understanding and identifying these logical fallacies, victims can better protect themselves from future scams and aid their psychological and emotional recovery. Recognizing these flawed thinking patterns is crucial for overcoming the negative impacts of being scammed and regaining a sense of control and well-being.

A Manual of Logical Fallacies
This catalog of logical fallacies is part of the SCARS Institute’s continuing commitment to helping the victims of scams (financial fraud) to better understand the psychology of scams. In other words, why are victims vulnerable?
[MANY OF THE ARTICLES LINKED BELOW APPEAR ON OTHER SCARS INSTITUTE WEBSITES – WE ARE RELOCATING THEM TO THIS WEBSITE AND WILL UPDATE THIS CATALOG AS NEW LOGICAL FALLACIES ARE ADDED]
Logical Fallacies Play a Large Role in Scam Victim Cognition, Vulnerability, and Ability to Recover After the Scam
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument.
Logical Fallacies often appear convincing at first glance but fail to hold up under scrutiny. Understanding these fallacies is crucial because they can lead to misunderstandings and poor decision-making.
Logical Fallacies are closely related to Cognitive Biases but are not actually the same thing. A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from rationality in judgment, often unconsciously affecting decisions and perceptions, while a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or argument that leads to an invalid conclusion, typically occurring within a structured debate or discourse.
Evolution of Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies evolved as cognitive shortcuts—ways for the brain to process information quickly and make decisions without extensive analysis. In our daily thinking, these shortcuts can help us navigate complex situations efficiently, but they often lead to flawed conclusions. Human brains are wired for pattern recognition, emotional responses, and quick judgments, which have been vital for survival. However, in our modern world, these instincts can lead us to fall for logical fallacies when making decisions or evaluating arguments. For example, we might rely on the appeal to authority because trusting someone with perceived expertise was once a practical way to learn, or we might fall for the appeal to emotion because emotional responses helped form social bonds and ensure cooperation. As these fallacies are often persuasive and emotionally satisfying, they can easily influence everyday conversations, marketing, and even political discourse.
While these mental shortcuts can serve us in familiar or low-stakes situations, they often distort complex reasoning or decision-making, making critical thinking skills essential in avoiding the pitfalls of logical fallacies in modern life. In the case of prospective victims of scams and other crimes, logical fallacies create a false sense of safety increasing vulnerability.
Logical Fallacy Examples:
Here are some common logical fallacies with examples of how they appear in everyday life:
Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Definition: This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character or motive of a person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
Example: During a political debate, instead of addressing the opponent’s policies, one candidate says, “You can’t trust him; he’s been divorced twice!” The argument shifts from policy to personal life, which is irrelevant to the political discussion.
Logical Fallacies: Straw Man
Definition: This involves misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: Person A says, “We should improve public education.” Person B responds, “My opponent believes that the only solution to our problems is to throw money at schools, but that won’t solve anything.” Person B is distorting Person A’s position to make it easier to argue against.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance
Definition: This fallacy occurs when it’s argued that something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false, or vice versa.
Example: “No one has ever proven that aliens don’t exist, so they must be real.” This argument assumes that lack of evidence against something is proof of its truth.
Logical Fallacies: False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)
Definition: This fallacy presents two options as the only possibilities when in fact more options exist.
Example: “You either support increasing military spending, or you’re against our troops.” This ignores other possible positions, such as supporting the troops through better pay or veterans’ benefits without increasing overall military spending.
Logical Fallacies: Slippery Slope
Definition: This fallacy assumes that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in some significant (usually negative) effect.
Example: “If we allow students to redo assignments, next thing you know, they’ll expect to retake tests, and eventually, they’ll think they don’t have to study at all.” This argument exaggerates the consequences of a small action.
Logical Fallacies: Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)
Definition: This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself.
Example: “I’m trustworthy because I always tell the truth.” The statement assumes what it is trying to prove without providing evidence.
Logical Fallacies: Bandwagon Fallacy (Ad Populum)
Definition: This fallacy argues that something must be true or good because many people believe it or do it.
Example: “Everyone is buying the latest smartphone model, so it must be the best one available.” The argument relies on popularity rather than actual quality or value.
Logical Fallacies: Hasty Generalization
Definition: This fallacy involves making a broad conclusion based on a small or unrepresentative sample.
Example: “My neighbor’s kids are rude, so all kids today must be badly behaved.” This generalizes a few observations to an entire group without sufficient evidence.
Logical Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
Definition: This fallacy assumes that if one event occurred after another, the first must have caused the second.
Example: “I wore my lucky shirt, and we won the game. My shirt must have caused the win!” This incorrectly links two unrelated events.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion
Definition: This fallacy manipulates emotions to win an argument rather than using valid reasoning.
Example: “Think of the poor children who will be affected if we don’t act now!” While the argument appeals to emotion, it may lack substantial evidence or logic to support the action proposed.
Understanding and identifying these fallacies can help you evaluate arguments more critically and avoid being misled by flawed reasoning in everyday conversations, media, and decision-making processes.
Now think about how many of these are being used in political discourse right now? However, your biases will probably only allow you to see the opponents as doing this.
This also happens before, during, and after relationship scams!
How Logical Fallacies Compared to Cognitive Biases
Logical fallacies and cognitive biases are related but distinct concepts in the cognition of reasoning and decision-making.
Logical Fallacies
Definition: Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. They occur when the structure of an argument is flawed, leading to invalid or weak conclusions.
Example: A common logical fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy, where the argument is attacked based on the person making it rather than the merits of the argument itself.
Cognitive Biases
Definition: Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from rationality in judgment. They are mental shortcuts that often arise from the brain’s attempt to simplify information processing.
Example: Confirmation Bias is a cognitive bias where people tend to search for, interpret, and remember information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs.
Relationship Between Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases
Overlap: While logical fallacies and cognitive biases are distinct, they can overlap. For instance, a cognitive bias might lead someone to use a logical fallacy. For example, confirmation bias might lead a person to commit a hasty generalization fallacy by drawing a broad conclusion based on limited evidence that supports their belief.
Differences: Logical fallacies are more about the structure of arguments and reasoning, while cognitive biases are about how we process information and make judgments.
Example of Overlap
Hasty Generalization (a logical fallacy) could be influenced by Availability Bias (a cognitive bias), where a person draws a conclusion based on information that is most readily available to them, rather than all the evidence.
In summary, while logical fallacies and cognitive biases are different, they are interconnected. Cognitive biases often underlie the use of logical fallacies, influencing the way we construct and evaluate arguments.
Scam Victim Vulnerability and Logical Fallacies
Scam victims often fall prey to logical fallacies that make them more vulnerable to relationship scams, both before and during the crime. These fallacies can cloud judgment, leading to poor decision-making and increased susceptibility to manipulation by scammers. Here are some common logical fallacies that scam victims may have or use:
Appeal to Emotion (Pathos)
Description: This fallacy occurs when an argument is made based on emotions rather than logic. Scammers often exploit victims’ emotions, such as loneliness, love, or fear, to manipulate them into making decisions that they wouldn’t otherwise make.
Example: A scammer may play on a victim’s fear of being alone or their desire for love, leading the victim to ignore red flags and continue the relationship despite warning signs.
Confirmation Fallacy (Related to Confirmation Bias)
Description: Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms existing beliefs while disregarding information that contradicts them. This can lead to a confirmation fallacy, where someone accepts only the evidence that supports their pre-existing beliefs.
Example: A victim might focus on the positive aspects of their interactions with the scammer while ignoring or rationalizing away suspicious behavior, believing the scammer’s excuses because it aligns with their hope that the relationship is genuine.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone believes something is true or acceptable simply because many others believe it or are doing it.
Example: A scam victim might be influenced by the perception that “everyone” they know is finding love online, making them more likely to ignore risks and trust someone they’ve met through an online platform.
Appeal to Authority
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone believes a claim is true because an authority or perceived expert supports it, even if the authority is not credible or relevant.
Example: A scammer might claim to be a successful businessman or a military officer, and the victim may trust them simply based on this perceived authority without verifying their credentials.
False Dilemma (Either/Or Fallacy)
Description: This fallacy presents a situation as having only two alternatives, one of which is usually extreme when in reality, there are more options.
Example: A scam victim might believe that they must either continue the relationship with the scammer or be alone, not considering other options such as seeking genuine connections or focusing on self-care.
Gambler’s Fallacy
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone believes that past events can influence the likelihood of future events in situations that are independent and random.
Example: A scam victim might think that because they have invested so much time or money into the relationship, it must eventually lead to a positive outcome, even though each interaction with the scammer is independent and likely manipulated.
Appeal to Flattery
Description: This fallacy involves using flattery to persuade someone to accept a proposition that they might otherwise reject.
Example: Scammers often shower victims with compliments and affection, making them feel special and valued, which can cloud the victim’s judgment and make them more susceptible to manipulation.
Sunk Cost Fallacy (Also a Cognitive Bias)
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone continues a behavior or endeavor due to previously invested resources (time, money, effort), rather than considering the present and future costs.
Example: A victim might continue sending money to a scammer because they’ve already sent so much, thinking they must see it through to recover their losses, even though continuing the behavior only increases their losses.
Appeal to Pity
Description: This fallacy is when someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting their opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt.
Example: A scammer might tell a sob story about needing money for a sick relative or to escape a dire situation, leading the victim to send money out of sympathy.
Overgeneralization (Hasty Generalization)
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone makes a broad claim based on a small amount of evidence.
Example: A victim might believe that because the scammer shared a few personal details that seemed true or relatable, the entire persona the scammer presents must be genuine.
Understanding these logical fallacies can help scam victims recognize when their thinking may be leading them astray. By identifying these flawed patterns of reasoning, individuals can better protect themselves from manipulation and avoid becoming victims of scams.
Logical Fallacies Getting in the Way of Scam Victim Recovery
Scam victims often struggle with psychological and emotional recovery due to the influence of several logical fallacies that impair their healing process. Some of these fallacies include:
- Appeal to Emotion: Victims may stay in a state of emotional turmoil because they believe their intense emotions validate their experience. This can lead to prolonged suffering, as they may resist efforts to rationalize the situation or adopt a more objective perspective that would aid in recovery.
- Appeal to Pity: Victims may believe that dwelling on their suffering is necessary or justified, leading them to continually relive the trauma instead of seeking ways to heal. This fallacy can keep them stuck in a cycle of self-pity and prevent them from moving forward.
- Appeal to Tradition: Some victims may believe that because they have always been trusting or kind-hearted, they should continue these behaviors without adjustment. This fallacy can prevent them from learning from the experience and making necessary changes to protect themselves in the future.
- Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question): Victims may find themselves caught in a loop of thinking, such as, “I’m not recovering because I can’t let go, and I can’t let go because I’m not recovering.” This fallacy can trap them in a cycle of negative thinking, making it difficult to break free and start the healing process.
- Fallacy of Division: Victims may assume that because they were scammed in one relationship, their entire ability to judge character or engage in relationships is flawed. This can lead to a lack of confidence in their interpersonal skills and a reluctance to engage in future relationships or social interactions.
- False Attribution Fallacy: Victims might wrongly attribute their negative experiences with the scam to their overall self-worth or intelligence. They may think, “I was scammed because I’m stupid or worthless,” which can damage self-esteem and hinder recovery by reinforcing a negative self-image.
- No True Scotsman Fallacy: Some victims may reject the idea of recovery strategies that have helped others, believing that their situation is unique or worse. This can prevent them from accepting support or trying methods that could actually aid in their recovery.
- Overgeneralization (Hasty Generalization): After being scammed, victims might overgeneralize their experience, believing that all people are untrustworthy or that they will never be able to trust again. This fallacy can lead to social isolation and prevent the rebuilding of healthy relationships.
- Personal Incredulity Fallacy: Victims may find it hard to believe that something so manipulative and deceitful could happen to them, leading them to remain in denial or disbelief. This inhibits their ability to fully accept the situation and take the necessary steps toward healing.
- Sunk Cost Fallacy: Victims might feel that because they have invested so much time, money, or emotional energy into the scam, they must continue to dwell on it. This fallacy can make it difficult for them to let go of the past and focus on recovery, as they feel compelled to justify their losses rather than move on.
Recognizing these logical fallacies is an essential step for scam victims in overcoming the barriers that impede their psychological and emotional recovery. By challenging these fallacies, victims can adopt healthier thought patterns and move toward a more positive and empowered state of mind.
How to Recognize Logical Fallacies
Recognizing that you are using logical fallacies in your thinking involves several key steps:
Self-Reflection and Awareness: Begin by paying attention to your thoughts, especially when you feel strongly about something. Ask yourself if your reasoning is based on evidence or emotion, and whether you’re making assumptions without solid backing.
Learn About Common Logical Fallacies: Familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies, such as appeal to emotion, overgeneralization, or circular reasoning. Understanding these will help you spot them in your own thinking.
Seek External Feedback: Discuss your thoughts and reasoning with others. Often, a third party can identify flaws or fallacies that you may not notice yourself. Constructive feedback from someone you trust can help you refine your thinking.
Question Your Assumptions: Challenge the assumptions you’re making in your reasoning. Ask yourself, “Is this always true?” or “What evidence do I have to support this belief?” This helps identify if you’re basing your conclusions on faulty logic.
Practice Critical Thinking: Regularly engage in activities that require critical thinking, such as reading, debating, or solving problems. This helps train your mind to spot inconsistencies or errors in logic.
Use Logical Analysis Tools: Apply tools like flowcharts or logic trees to break down your reasoning into smaller steps. This can help you see where your logic might be flawed or where you’re making unwarranted leaps.
Recognize Emotional Triggers: Be mindful of situations where emotions might cloud your judgment. If you find yourself reacting strongly, take a step back and analyze whether your emotions are driving your reasoning into fallacious territory.
Study Logical Arguments: Reading books or taking courses on logic and reasoning can provide deeper insights into how to think logically and recognize when you’re not.
By regularly practicing these steps, you can become more adept at recognizing and correcting logical fallacies in your thinking. This will lead to clearer, more rational decision-making.
One simple approach is to write down a position or argument on paper, leave it alone for a few hours or a day, and then come back to it. See if it still is as compelling as it was before.
Remember
A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from rationality in judgment, often unconsciously affecting decisions and perceptions, while a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or argument that leads to an invalid conclusion, typically occurring within a structured debate or discourse.
Catalog of Logical Fallacies
Here are catalogued logical fallacies:
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. Example: “You can’t trust his opinion on climate change because he’s not a scientist.”
- Affirming the Consequent: Assuming that because the consequent is true, the antecedent must also be true. Example: “If it rains, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet, so it must have rained.”
- Appeal to Antiquity (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem): Arguing that something is better because it is old or traditional. Example: “This remedy has been used for centuries, so it must be effective.”
- Appeal to Authority: Asserting a claim is true because an authority or expert says it is, without any other evidence. Example: “This medication must be safe because my doctor said so.”
- Appeal to Consequences (Argumentum ad Consequentiam): Arguing that a belief is false because it implies undesirable consequences. Example: “If we believe climate change is real, it would mean we have to change our entire way of life, so it can’t be true.”
- Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating an emotional response instead of presenting a logical argument. Example: “Think of the children! We have to ban video games.”
- Appeal to Fear (Scare Tactics): Using fear to persuade someone to accept a conclusion. Example: “If we don’t pass this law, our country will be overrun by criminals.”
- Appeal to Ignorance (Argument from Ignorance): Assuming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false. Example: “No one has proven that ghosts don’t exist, so they must be real.
- Appeal to Nature: Assuming something is good because it’s natural. Example: “Herbal medicine is better than pharmaceuticals because it’s natural.”
- Appeal to Novelty (Argumentum ad Novitatem): Arguing that something is better because it is new. Example: “This new software must be better because it just came out.”
- Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam): Using pity to persuade someone to accept a conclusion. Example: “You should hire me because I have a family to support, and I’m struggling to make ends meet.”
- Appeal to Poverty (Argumentum ad Lazarum): Assuming that being poor or lacking wealth equates to correctness or moral superiority. Example: “Her argument is more valid because she lives a simple life and isn’t motivated by money.”
- Appeal to Tradition: Arguing that something is better simply because it’s traditional. Example: “We should keep the monarchy because it’s been part of our history for centuries.”
- Appeal to Wealth (Argumentum ad Crumenam): Assuming that wealth or money equates to correctness or value. Example: “He must be right; after all, he’s rich and successful.”
- Argument from Ignorance (Appeal to Ignorance): Asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). Example: “No one has proven that aliens don’t exist, so they must be real.”
- Argument from Silence (Argumentum ex Silentio): Drawing a conclusion based on the absence of evidence. Example: “Nobody has ever proven that Bigfoot doesn’t exist, so he must be real.”
- Argument to Moderation (Argumentum ad Temperantiam): Assuming that the middle ground between two extremes is always correct. Example: “Since one side says climate change is a hoax and the other says it’s a crisis, the truth must be somewhere in between.”
- Bandwagon (Appeal to Popularity): Arguing something is true or good because it’s popular. Example: “Everyone is switching to this new diet, so it must be effective.”
- Base Rate Fallacy: Ignoring statistical information in favor of anecdotal evidence or specific cases. Example: “I don’t need a flu shot because I know someone who got the flu after getting the shot.”
- Cherry Picking (Suppressing Evidence): Selecting evidence that supports your argument while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. Example: “This study shows that coffee is healthy, so it must be good for everyone,” while ignoring studies that show potential negative effects.
- Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question): The argument’s conclusion is assumed in the premise. Example: “I’m trustworthy because I always tell the truth.”
- Composition Fallacy: Assuming that what is true for the parts is true for the whole. Example: “Each player on this team is talented, so the team must be the best.”
- Denying the Antecedent: Assuming that because the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false. Example: “If it rains, the ground will be wet. It didn’t rain, so the ground can’t be wet.”
- Division Fallacy: Assuming that what is true for the whole is true for its parts. Example: “The team is excellent, so every player must be excellent too.”
- Equivocation (Ambiguity Fallacy): Using a word in two different senses in an argument. Example: “The sign said ‘fine for parking here,’ so I thought it was okay to park.”
- Fallacy of Composition: Assuming that what is true for a part is true for the whole. Example: “Each member of the team is great, so the team as a whole must be great.”
- Fallacy of Division: Assuming that what is true for the whole is true for the parts. Example: “The team is great, so every member must be great.”
- Fallacy of the Single Cause (Causal Oversimplification): Attributing an outcome to a single cause when it’s actually the result of multiple factors. Example: “The economy is bad because of the president.”
- False Analogy: Making an inappropriate comparison between two things. Example: “Just like how cars need fuel, humans need coffee to function.”
- False Attribution: Citing a source that is not credible or misrepresenting the source’s expertise. Example: “A study by a group of researchers shows that vaccines are dangerous,” when the researchers are not credible.
- False Authority: Citing an authority in one field as an expert in another unrelated field. Example: “A famous actor says this diet is the best, so it must be true.”
- False Balance: Presenting two sides of an issue as if they are equally valid when one is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Example: “Some people believe the earth is flat, so we should teach both sides of the debate.”
- False Consensus: Assuming that your beliefs or opinions are the majority view. Example: “Everyone I know agrees with me, so it must be true.”
- False Dilemma (Black-and-White Thinking): Presenting two options as the only possibilities when more exist. Example: “You’re either with us or against us.”
- False Equivalence: Drawing a conclusion by falsely asserting that two situations are equivalent. Example: “Calling someone out on social media is just as bad as bullying.”
- Gambler’s Fallacy: Believing that past random events affect future ones. Example: “I’ve flipped heads five times in a row, so the next flip must be tails.”
- Hasty Generalization: Making a general statement based on a small or unrepresentative sample. Example: “My friend had a bad experience with a plumber; therefore, all plumbers are incompetent.”
- Loaded Question: Asking a question that contains a presumption of guilt or wrongdoing. Example: “When did you stop cheating on your tests?”
- Middle Ground: Assuming the middle position between two extremes is always correct. Example: “One side says vaccines cause autism, and the other says they don’t. The truth must be somewhere in the middle.”
- No True Scotsman: Changing the definition of a group to exclude counterexamples. Example: “No true American would criticize the government.”
- Personal Incredulity: Asserting something must be false because you find it difficult to understand. Example: “I can’t understand how evolution works, so it must be wrong.”
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause): Assuming that because one event followed another, the first caused the second. Example: “I wore my lucky socks, and we won the game, so the socks must be the reason.”
- Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. Example: “Why worry about the environment when there are homeless people who need help?”
- Reductio ad Absurdum (Reduction to Absurdity): Extending an argument to the point of absurdity to disprove it. Example: “If we allow students to redo their exams, soon they’ll be asking to redo every mistake they make in life.”
- Reification (Hypostatization): Treating an abstract concept as if it were a concrete, real thing. Example: “The economy wants us to work harder,” as if the economy has desires or intentions.
- Retrospective Determinism: Arguing that because something happened, it was inevitable. Example: “He failed the test because he wasn’t meant to succeed.”
- Slippery Slope: Arguing that a minor action will lead to major and often ludicrous consequences. Example: “If we allow people to marry the same sex, soon people will want to marry animals.”
- Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. Example: “He wants to reduce military spending, so he must think we shouldn’t defend our country.”
- Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing an endeavor due to the resources already invested, despite it being irrational. Example: “I’ve already spent $1,000 on this car; I might as well keep fixing it.”
- Tu Quoque (You Too): Dismissing someone’s argument because they are hypocritical. Example: “How can you argue for a healthy diet when you eat junk food?”
There are many many more! They will be added as encountered.
These fallacies do subtly influence our reasoning and lead to faulty conclusions, making it important to recognize and avoid them in everyday thinking and decision-making. Be careful what you believe, especially during an election season!
Logical Fallacies By Type
Formal Fallacies
Formal Fallacies
A formal fallacy is an error in the argument’s form. All formal fallacies are types of non sequitur.
-
- Appeal to probability – taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).
- Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a “conclusion” is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.
- Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.
- Conjunction fallacy – the assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
- Non sequitur fallacy – where the conclusion does not logically follow the premise.
- Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Propositional Fallacies
A propositional fallacy is an error that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly: [and, [or, [not, [only if, [if and only if). The following fallacies involve relations whose truth values are not guaranteed and therefore not guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of propositional fallacies:
-
- Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.
- Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
- Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
Quantification Fallacies
A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of quantification fallacies:
-
- Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.
Formal Syllogistic Fallacies
Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
-
- Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
- Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
- Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.
- Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
- Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
- Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.
- Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.
- Modal fallacy – confusing necessity with sufficiency. A condition X is necessary for Y if X is required for even the possibility of Y. X does not bring about Y by itself, but if there is no X, there will be no Y. For example, oxygen is necessary for fire. But one cannot assume that everywhere there is oxygen, there is fire. A condition X is sufficient for Y if X, by itself, is enough to bring about Y. For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work. But there are other modes of transportation – car, taxi, bicycle, walking – that can be used.
- Modal scope fallacy – a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion.
Informal Fallacies
Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies – arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises.
-
- Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that a compromise between two positions is always correct.
- Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy, decision-point fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.
- Correlative-based fallacies
- Suppressed correlative – a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible (e.g., “I’m not fat because I’m thinner than John.”).
- Definist fallacy – defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner (e.g., using “loaded terms”). The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute.
- Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so phenomenal or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.
- Double counting – counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.
- Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended.
- Ambiguous middle term – using a middle term with multiple meanings.
- Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised. Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
- Fallacy of accent – changing the meaning of a statement by not specifying on which word emphasis falls.
- if-by-whiskey fallacy (see below)
- Motte-and-bailey fallacy – conflating two positions with similar properties, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one more controversial (the “bailey”). The arguer first states the controversial position, but when challenged, states that they are advancing the modest position.
- Persuasive definition – purporting to use the “true” or “commonly accepted” meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition.
- Ecological fallacy – inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.
- Etymological fallacy – assuming that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.
- Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
- Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a composite thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
- False attribution – appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
- Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextotomy, contextomy; quotation mining) – selective excerpting of words from their original context to distort the intended meaning.
- False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to promote a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority.
- False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.
- False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.
- Feedback fallacy – believing in the objectivity of an evaluation to be used as the basis for improvement without verifying that the source of the evaluation is a disinterested party.
- Historian’s fallacy – assuming that decision-makers of the past had identical information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. This is not to be confused with presentism, in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically projected into the past.
- Historical fallacy – believing that certain results occurred only because a specific process was performed, though said process may actually be unrelated to the results.
- Baconian fallacy – supposing that historians can obtain the “whole truth” via induction from individual pieces of historical evidence. The “whole truth” is defined as learning “something about everything”, “everything about something”, or “everything about everything”. In reality, a historian “can only hope to know something about something”.
- Homunculus fallacy – using a “middle-man” for explanation; this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. It explains a concept in terms of the concept itself without explaining its real nature (e.g.: explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker – a homunculus – inside the head simply identifies an intermediary actor and does not explain the product or process of thinking).
- Inflation of conflict – arguing that, if experts in a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point within that field, no conclusion can be reached or that the legitimacy of that field of knowledge is questionable.
- If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are emotionally sensitive and ambiguous.
- Incomplete comparison – insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
- Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so).
- Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
- Ludic fallacy – failing to take into account that non-regulated random occurrences unknown unknowns can affect the probability of an event taking place.
- Lump of labour fallacy – the misconception that there is a fixed amount of work to be done within an economy, which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs.
- McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy) – making an argument using only quantitative observations (measurements, statistical or numerical values) and discounting subjective information that focuses on quality (traits, features, or relationships).
- Mind projection fallacy – assuming that a statement about an object describes an inherent property of the object, rather than a personal perception.
- Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction (e.g.: inferring is from ought). Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy.
- Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
- Nirvana fallacy (perfect-solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
- Package deal – treating essentially dissimilar concepts as though they were essentially similar.
- Prevalent proof fallacy – Using consensus or majority vote as evidence of truthfulness, often without regard for expert opinion.
- Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam).
- Prosecutor’s fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
- Proving too much – an argument that results in an overly generalized conclusion (e.g.: arguing that drinking alcohol is bad because in some instances it has led to spousal or child abuse).
- Psychologist’s fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
- Referential fallacy – assuming that all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object (e.g.: Pegasus) or that the meaning comes from how they are used (e.g.: “nobody” was in the room).
- Reification (concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) – treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity (e.g.: saying that evolution selects which traits are passed on to future generations; evolution is not a conscious entity with agency).
- Retrospective determinism – believing that, because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made the event inevitable (e.g.: because someone won the lottery while wearing their lucky socks, wearing those socks made winning the lottery inevitable).
- Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel’s nose) – asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
- Special pleading – the arguer attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption (e.g.: an orphaned defendant who murdered their parents asking for leniency).
Improper Premise
-
- Begging the question (petitio principii) – using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you; something that kills is deadly).
- Loaded label – while not inherently fallacious, the use of evocative terms to support a conclusion is a type of begging the question fallacy. When fallaciously used, the term’s connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion. For example, in an organic foods advertisement that says “Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives”, the terms “safe” and “healthy” are used to fallaciously imply that non-organic foods are neither safe nor healthy.
- Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end up with (e.g.: all bachelors are unmarried males).
- Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presuppositions, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda. (E.g., “Have you or have you not stopped beating your wife?”.)
- Begging the question (petitio principii) – using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you; something that kills is deadly).
Faulty Generalizations
Faulty generalization – reaching a conclusion from weak premises.
-
- Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.
- No true Scotsman – makes a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample.
- Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence, argument by half-truth, fallacy of exclusion, card stacking, slanting) – using individual cases or data that confirm a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may contradict that position.
- Nut-picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – using individual cases or data that falsify a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may support that position.
- Survivorship bias – a small number of successes of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures.
- False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
- Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample.
- Argument from anecdote – a fallacy where anecdotal evidence is presented as an argument; without any other contributory evidence or reasoning.
- Inductive fallacy – a more general name for a class of fallacies, including hasty generalization and its relatives. A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only lightly support it.
- Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is more important; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
- Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
- Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of forethought, move on to other topics, etc. – but in any case, to end the debate with a cliché rather than a point.
- Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.
Questionable Cause
Questionable cause is a general type of error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation, either by inappropriately deducing (or rejecting) causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect.
-
- Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for ‘with this, therefore because of this’; correlation implies causation; faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for ‘after this, therefore because of this’; temporal sequence implies causation) – X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.
- Wrong direction (reverse causation) – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. The consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
Ignoring a common cause
- Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
- Furtive fallacy – outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
- Magical thinking – fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events. In anthropology, it refers primarily to cultural beliefs that ritual, prayer, sacrifice, and taboos will produce specific supernatural consequences. In psychology, it refers to an irrational belief that thoughts by themselves can affect the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.
- Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for ‘with this, therefore because of this’; correlation implies causation; faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.
Statistical Fallacies
-
- Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.
- Gambler’s fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is “due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails” is incorrect.
- Inverse gambler’s fallacy – the inverse of the gambler’s fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that on the basis of an unlikely outcome, the process must have happened many times before.
- p-hacking – belief in the significance of a result, not realizing that multiple comparisons or experiments have been run and only the most significant were published.
- Garden of forking paths fallacy – incorrect belief that a single experiment can not be subject to the multiple comparisons effect.
Relevance Fallacies
-
- Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
- Invincible ignorance (argument by pigheadedness) – where a person simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.
- Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
- Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – “I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.”
- Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum) – repeating an argument until nobody cares to discuss it any more and referencing that lack of objection as evidence of support for the truth of the conclusion; sometimes confused with proof by assertion.
- Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.
- Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
- Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
Red Herring Fallacies
A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying “If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?”). In jury trial, it is known as a Chewbacca defense. In political strategy, it is called a dead cat strategy. See also irrelevant conclusion.
-
- Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that “ad hominem” can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent’s own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)
- Appeal to motive – dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
- Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer’s personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.
- Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
- Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.
- Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo, ‘therefore I leave’) – a critic’s perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Easily confused with the association fallacy (guilt by association) below.
- Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
- Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion see below.
- Courtier’s reply – a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.
- Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.
- Appeal to emotion – manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement.
- Appeal to fear – generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument.
- Appeal to flattery – using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement.
- Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement.
- Appeal to ridicule – mocking or stating that the opponent’s position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent’s argument.
- Appeal to spite – generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument.
- Judgmental language – using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.
- Pooh-pooh – stating that an opponent’s argument is unworthy of consideration.
- Style over substance – embellishing an argument with compelling language, exploiting a bias towards the esthetic qualities of an argument, e.g. the rhyme-as-reason effect
- Wishful thinking – arguing for a course of action by the listener according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence or reason.
- Appeal to nature – judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’. (Sometimes also called the “naturalistic fallacy”, but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)
- Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern. (opposite of appeal to tradition)
- Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)
- Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
- Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer’s financial situation.)
- Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.
- Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.
- Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.
- Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the
- Implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.
- Logic chopping fallacy (nit-picking, trivial objections) – Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation.
- Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.
- Chronological snobbery – a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held.
- Fallacy of relative privation (also known as “appeal to worse problems” or “not as bad as”) – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.
- Genetic fallacy – a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
- I’m entitled to my opinion – a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion.
- Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction; e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
- Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises00 in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
- Is–ought fallacy0 – deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.
- Naturalistic fallacy fallacy0 (anti-naturalistic fallacy)0 – inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy.
- Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
- Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.
- Tu quoque (‘you too’ – appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism) – stating that a position is false, wrong, or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with it.
- Two wrongs make a right – assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it.
- Vacuous truth – a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form no A in B has C, when there is no A in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room.
- Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that “ad hominem” can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent’s own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)
Statement About Victim Blaming
Some of our articles discuss various aspects of victims. This is both about better understanding victims (the science of victimology) and their behaviors and psychology. This helps us to educate victims/survivors about why these crimes happened and to not blame themselves, better develop recovery programs, and to help victims avoid scams in the future. At times this may sound like blaming the victim, but it does not blame scam victims, we are simply explaining the hows and whys of the experience victims have.
These articles, about the Psychology of Scams or Victim Psychology – meaning that all humans have psychological or cognitive characteristics in common that can either be exploited or work against us – help us all to understand the unique challenges victims face before, during, and after scams, fraud, or cybercrimes. These sometimes talk about some of the vulnerabilities the scammers exploit. Victims rarely have control of them or are even aware of them, until something like a scam happens and then they can learn how their mind works and how to overcome these mechanisms.
Articles like these help victims and others understand these processes and how to help prevent them from being exploited again or to help them recover more easily by understanding their post-scam behaviors. Learn more about the Psychology of Scams at www.ScamPsychology.org
SCARS Resources:
♦ Enroll in SCARS Scam Survivor’s School now at www.SCARSeducation.org
♦ To report criminals visit reporting.AgainstScams.org – we will NEVER give your data to money recovery companies like some do!
♦ If you are a victim of scams go to ScamVictimsSupport.org for real knowledge and help
♦ Come and join our kinder, safer, no-hate, anti-scam education and discussion group: support.AgainstScams.org
♦ Sign up for our free support & recovery help by support.AgainstScams.org
♦ Join our WhatsApp Chat Group at: https://chat.whatsapp.com/BPDSYlkdHBbDBg8gfTGb02
♦ Follow us on X: x.com/RomanceScamsNow
♦ Follow us and find our podcasts, webinars, and helpful videos on YouTube at: www.youtube.com/@RomancescamsNowcom
♦ See SCARS Institute Scam Victim Self-Help Books at shop.AgainstScams.org
♦ Learn about the Psychology of Scams at www.ScamPsychology.org
♦ Dig deeper into the reality of scams, fraud, and cybercrime at www.ScamsNOW.com and www.RomanceScamsNOW.com
♦ Become a SCARS Institute Member – Help Us Help Others – learn more at membership.AgainstScams.org
♦ See more scammer photos on ScammerPhotos.com
You can also find the SCARS Institute on Facebook, WhatsApp, X, LinkedIn, and TruthSocial
Psychology Disclaimer:
All articles about psychology, neurology, and the human brain on this website are for information & education only
The information provided in these articles is intended for educational and self-help purposes only and should not be construed as a substitute for professional therapy or counseling.
While any self-help techniques outlined herein may be beneficial for scam victims seeking to recover from their experience and move towards recovery, it is important to consult with a qualified mental health professional before initiating any course of action. Each individual’s experience and needs are unique, and what works for one person may not be suitable for another.
Additionally, any approach may not be appropriate for individuals with certain pre-existing mental health conditions or trauma histories. It is advisable to seek guidance from a licensed therapist or counselor who can provide personalized support, guidance, and treatment tailored to your specific needs.
If you are experiencing significant distress or emotional difficulties related to a scam or other traumatic event, please consult your doctor or mental health provider for appropriate care and support.
Also, please read our SCARS Institute Statement About Professional Care for Scam Victims – here
If you are in crisis, feeling desperate, or in despair please call 988 or your local crisis hotline.
SCARS LINKS: AgainstScams.org RomanceScamsNOW.com ContraEstafas.org ScammerPhotos.com Anyscam.com ScamsNOW.com
reporting.AgainstScams.org support.AgainstScams.org membership.AgainstScams.org donate.AgainstScams.org shop.AgainstScams.org
youtube.AgainstScams.org linkedin.AgainstScams.org facebook.AgainstScams.org
Leave A Comment