About Worst-Case Filtering:

Audiences may be cowed into submission if you confidently present them with a catastrophic or malevolent interpretation of a situation.  The mental reaction often is, “Oh, I had no idea that it was so dangerous. We must follow your lead!” Even among audiences who do know better, it’s often difficult for folks on the same side to counter the worst-case scenario out of sense of fear or accusations of “minimizing the issue.” Meanwhile, the opposition typically is not inclined to engage with the claim, but rather will use it to cement its view that the other side is unreasonable.

Mild forms of worst-case filtering may be employed as sensible guidance (be careful of such-and-such risk) or else as an implicit demand for an alternative explanation or defense from the opposition. It often serves as a call to inaction—warning against change or against adopting a different viewpoint or policy—based on catastrophic thinking. Egregious forms of worst-case filtering, in contrast, may aim to incite paranoia; encourage black-and-white thinking, or to unfairly demonize or stigmatize individuals.

A constructive response to a worst-case claim is to respectfully request evidence, without insinuating that the presenter has ill intent.