Mistake Type:
Catastrophizing
Depicting an event or threat as more ruinous than it actually is.
Examples:
“If that candidate wins, it’s the end of our democracy as we know it.”
“The genie is out of the bottle: AI is going to destroy civilization.”
“China’s plan now is to impose its own system onto the world order.”
“My grandchildren will face a bleak existence thanks to rapid global warming.”
About Catastrophizing:
Catastrophizing is designed to inflame emotions, often fear or anger, and to prompt immediate, often rash, action. It leverages the audience’s uncertainty or lack of information about a specific issue to paint an apocalyptic picture that is disproportionately alarming compared to the actual situation. For the issuer, this technique is advantageous because it can garner immediate attention and emotional investment, bypassing rational analysis.
One of the key challenges in countering catastrophizing is its emotional potency. It’s very difficult to persuade people that “it’s not that bad.” Rational arguments or statistical evidence that aim to provide a more balanced view often struggle to compete with the strong emotional pull of a catastrophic narrative. Catastrophizing is particularly effective because it taps into our innate survival instincts, which are wired to react more strongly to perceived threats than to opportunities or neutral information.
Another reason that catastrophists are seldom challenged by others is the fear of being denounced: for complacency, or for keeping one’s head in the sand, or for group disloyalty, or for a lack of alarm, morality, outrage, etc. Even polite questions may be met with vitriol. The result is a distorted, one-sided shape in the discussion.