Ignoring or underweighting the underlying probability (base rate) of an event in favor of specific case information or individuating details. This leads to systematic errors when the base rate is crucial for accurate probability assessment.

Judging the probability of a conjunction of events (A and B together) to be more likely than one of the constituent events alone (just A or just B). This violates the fundamental probability axiom that P(A and B) ≤ P(A).

Believing that past outcomes in a random, independent process affect the probability of future outcomes, especially that a streak of one outcome makes the opposite outcome 'due.' This reflects a misunderstanding of independence in probability.

Believing that a person who has experienced success with a random or mostly random process has a greater chance of continued success (is 'hot'), or conversely, that success makes failure more likely (due to 'regression'). This involves incorrectly perceiving patterns or streaks in random sequences.

Upon observing a rare or unlikely event, concluding that the event must have been preceded by many trials or attempts. This involves inferring the number of opportunities from a single observed outcome, which is not justified without additional information about the selection process.

Following others' judgments or actions while disregarding one's own independent information or analysis, based on the assumption that others must know something you don't. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where each person's decision to follow the crowd provides additional social proof for the next person, regardless of the actual quality of the underlying reasoning.

Proposing an evolutionary, historical, or causal explanation that sounds plausible and fits the observed facts but lacks empirical evidence, makes no testable predictions, and could easily be adjusted to fit contrary evidence. The term comes from Rudyard Kipling's stories explaining how animals got their features through imaginative tales.

Applying mathematical models, probability theory, or game-theoretic reasoning designed for structured games or controlled environments to messy real-world situations that don't share the same well-defined rules, known probabilities, or stable structure. The term 'ludic' comes from the Latin 'ludus' (game).

Making decisions based solely on quantitative metrics while ignoring important factors that are difficult to measure or quantify. The name comes from Robert McNamara's reliance on body counts and other quantifiable metrics during the Vietnam War while ignoring unquantifiable factors like political will and popular support.

Assuming that the truth or best solution must lie somewhere between two opposing positions, or that compromise is inherently superior to either extreme position, without independently evaluating which position is actually better supported by evidence or reasoning.

Mistaking properties of your mental model, beliefs, or internal representations for objective properties of external reality. This includes treating subjective experiences, mental categories, probability assessments, or conceptual frameworks as if they were features of the world itself rather than features of your thinking about the world.

Incorrectly moving modal operators (necessary, possible, must, might) from one position in a logical statement to another, changing the meaning in ways that invalidate the inference. This includes confusing 'necessarily, if P then Q' with 'if P, then necessarily Q,' or confusing 'possibly there exists an X' with 'there exists an X that is possibly.'

Overweighting potential losses relative to equivalent gains, or refusing to accept favorable trades or take rational actions because they involve giving up something you currently have, even when the expected value is clearly positive. This manifests as treating losses as psychologically more significant than objectively equivalent gains.

The mistaken belief that there is a fixed amount of work or a finite number of jobs in an economy, such that if some people work less or some jobs are eliminated, there will be more work or jobs available for others. This treats employment as a zero-sum game where one person's job gain must be another person's job loss.

The belief that students learn better when instruction matches their preferred learning 'style' (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.), and that personalizing instruction to these styles improves learning outcomes. Despite widespread belief, this is not supported by scientific evidence when rigorously tested.

Treating information as more credible, important, or true because it is presented in an entertaining, engaging, or emotionally compelling format, or because it has gone viral. Conversely, dismissing important but dry information because it lacks entertainment value. This confuses the packaging of information with its accuracy or significance.

Arguing that someone's misfortune, suffering, or bad outcomes must be deserved or the result of their own failings, based on the assumption that the world is fundamentally just and people get what they deserve. The name comes from the biblical Book of Job, where Job's 'comforters' insist his suffering must be punishment for hidden sins.

Misunderstanding or misapplying the concept of jury nullification in ways that involve faulty reasoning. This includes: believing nullification makes unjust outcomes just, that jury power to nullify equals a right to nullify, that personal disagreement with law justifies nullification, or that nullification verdicts represent valid legal precedent. The fallacies involve confusing legal power with legal authority, outcomes with justification, or individual moral judgment with systemic justice.

Confusing what is legal with what is moral or just, or conversely, assuming that what is moral must be legal. This includes treating legal permissibility as moral justification, legality as evidence of morality, or moral wrongness as proof of illegality. The fallacy conflates positive law (what the law is) with normative ethics (what should be).