Mind Reading is the cognitive fallacy of claiming to know the internal motivations, secret intentions, or true thoughts of another person. Within the context of the Persuasion Filter, mind reading is identified as a primary tool for creating narratives that lack a factual basis. It is a staple of modern political punditry, where analysts often skip over what a person did to focus entirely on why they supposedly did it.
The Mechanism of the Fallacy
Mind reading occurs when an observer projects their own Confirmation Bias onto a target. Because we cannot observe a person’s thoughts directly, we fill the vacuum with a narrative that fits our existing worldview. As the quote suggests, “That choice of words tries to add facts without facts.” By assigning a motive to an opponent, a critic can turn a neutral or ambiguous action into a sinister plot or a sign of incompetence.
Pundits use mind reading to bypass objective reality. For example, if a politician makes a specific policy move, a mind-reading analyst will claim, “They are only doing this to distract from a scandal,” or “They secretly hate a specific demographic.” This is an attempt to turn a visible action into an invisible psychological state that cannot be debunked.
Failed Analysis and Hoaxes
Mind reading is a major driver of the “fake news” cycle. When the media engages in this behavior, they often create what appear to be coordinated narratives based on nothing but collective guessing. Scott Adams often notes that we are frequently on “hoax number five from the New York Times” or similar outlets because the reporting relies on “anonymous sources” who claim to know the internal state of the administration.
In reality, most complex events are part of “the most transparent process in the world,” yet observers insist on looking for a “hidden” layer. This often leads to failed predictions because the analysts are reacting to a phantom version of the person rather than the actual Moist Robot in front of them.
Better Alternatives
To avoid the mind-reading trap, one should utilize more reliable frameworks:
- The Tragedy Baseline: As a rule of thumb, assume people react to life normally. “Tragedy affects normal people in all the ways you would expect,” so there is rarely a need for a complex psychological conspiracy to explain human behavior.
- Look at Results: Instead of guessing intent, judge the effectiveness of the persuasion. Is the person a Master Persuader? If so, their “intent” is irrelevant compared to the outcome they achieved.
- Two Persuasions: Recognize that two different people can see the same event and honestly interpret it through different filters.
By stripping away the claim that we can “know” someone’s heart, we move from a state of hallucination to a state of observation.
Related Frameworks: