Today, I'm revealing something incredible: why so many people like (on social) absurdities. (sourced)

Criticism is mean, right? Well, that's what children think!

Everything you've always wanted to know about how people behave under posts and why they like or keep liking their favorite influencer’s posts—even when rational critiques have already been provided in the comments.

No, it's not just because they don’t understand them... well, sometimes. But not only that. And no, it's not just because they liked one sentence in the whole post.

Are they really in control of their "likes"? Have you ever wondered about that?

Science will finally explain why people "like" the nonsense spread by certain "influencers" and why they fail to exercise critical thinking when they should.

And no, it’s not just because the photo is beautiful… We’re going deeper.

Social media has revolutionized our relationship with information—but also with those who distribute it. Some influencers build communities so loyal that they support them no matter what. And today, we’ll go beyond individual strategies and personal motives.

But why? Why, after following an influencer for two months, five months, a year, or even longer, is it so difficult to see and admit when they’ve been wrong in a post, when they oversimplify, distort reality, promote flawed reasoning, or even outright nonsense—and don't even question themselves?

What Chat 4o and I will show you (yes, I only had 4 hours to dive into this topic) is that questioning them means questioning yourself.

It means recognizing that you were seduced without thinking critically enough, guided by emotions, that you accepted biased ideas, that you shared questionable posts, and liked and commented on superficial, poorly supported content for a long time.

In short, it forces you to question your own ability to discern reality.

And our brain hates that.

So, instead of admitting doubt, people prefer to keep liking, defending, and rationalizing—rather than accepting that they may have followed a charlatan who isn’t as competent as he appears in the areas he discusses.

This behavior can be analyzed through 10 psychological mechanisms (not exhaustive), well-documented and studied by science:

📌 Confirmation Bias (Nickerson, 1998): The tendency to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs.

📌 Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957): The psychological discomfort when confronted with evidence that contradicts our beliefs.

📌 Group Effect & Social Loyalty (Tajfel & Turner, 1979): Instinctively defending ideas shared by one’s group.

📌 Authority Bias (Milgram, 1963): Tendency to give excessive credibility to someone perceived as authoritative.

📌 Virality Effect & Social Validation (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973): The more an idea is repeated and visible, the more credible it seems.

📌 Commitment & Freezing Effect (Lewin, 1947): The more one invests in a belief, the harder it is to turn back.

📌 Illusion of Truth (Hasher et al., 1977): Repeating a statement makes it credible, even if it's false.

📌 Negativity Bias (Rozin & Royzman, 2001): Over-focusing on negative information, fueling controversies.

📌 Availability Heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973): Judging frequency or validity based on how easily something comes to mind.

📌 Anchoring Bias (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974): Giving disproportionate weight to the first piece of information received.

📌 Conformity Pressure (Asch, 1951): Adjusting one’s opinion to match the group for fear of rejection.

📌 Homophily Bias (McPherson et al., 2001): Tendency to interact with people who share the same beliefs, reinforcing filter bubbles.

📌 Of course, this applies to you. You'll understand why with this list of examples:

1️⃣ Confirmation Bias

• An influencer claims that "visualizing success guarantees its realization." A comment explains that it doesn't work without concrete actions and steps, but followers dismiss or reject the critique as "negative."
• A doctor defends a diet widely contested by scientific studies. Instead of considering opposing research, his followers rely solely on anecdotal success stories.

2️⃣ Cognitive Dissonance

• A wellness influencer promotes drinking lemon water on an empty stomach to "eliminate toxins." An expert proves it's a myth, but followers reply: "I feel better, so it works!"
• A YouTuber sells a miracle program to get rich in 6 months. When an analyst debunks it, his fans claim, "The elites are hiding these opportunities from us!"

3️⃣ Group Effect & Social Loyalty

• A minimalist lifestyle influencer secretly does sponsored product placements. When a follower exposes it, fans argue that he "deserves to be paid."
• A fitness coach recommends risky exercises without disclaimers. When a comment warns about potential injuries, followers call it "hate."

4️⃣ Authority Bias

• A business guru declares, "Degrees are useless." When an economist proves otherwise, followers respond, "Look where he is today!"
• An influencer claims, "You must never have a Plan B." and people accept it as gospel, ignoring counterexamples.
• A nutrition influencer states, "Sugar is pure poison." When a dietitian refutes this, followers call him a "sellout."

5️⃣ Virality Effect & Social Validation

• A dangerous TikTok challenge (e.g., eating detergent pods) goes viral, attracting thousands of participants despite common sense and widespread warnings.
• A false health claim spreads widely, and critical comments are drowned out by likes and shares.

6️⃣ Commitment & Freezing Effect

• A person spends €2,000 on a low-value coaching program. Instead of admitting the scam, they justify: "At least I learned something!"
• A CEO coach claims "real leaders only sleep 4 hours per night." Despite scientific evidence proving sleep deprivation harms performance (Walker, 2017), his followers rationalize: "It’s only for the true winners!" His status and thousands of likes shield him from criticism, reinforcing a lucrative but exhausting myth.

7️⃣ Illusion of Truth

• A fake Einstein quote ("If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough") is massively shared. Due to repetition, it is perceived as genuine—even though Einstein never said it.
• The claim "We only use 10% of our brain" is scientifically false, yet remains widely believed because it has been repeated in media and movies for decades.

8️⃣ Negativity Bias

• An influencer sparks an absurd controversy. The more extreme it is, the more engagement it generates.
• A news outlet focuses on crime and catastrophes, as negative information attracts more attention than positive news. (But no, this doesn’t affect your mental well-being, right? Stay optimistic!)
• A provocative political post gets 10x more shares than a rational analysis because people react more strongly to content that outrages or irritates them.

9️⃣ Availability Heuristic

• A high-profile violent crime is repeatedly covered in the media, making people believe that crime is skyrocketing—despite statistics showing stability or decline.
• Success stories of crypto investors making millions dominate headlines, creating the illusion that "everyone is winning", while those who lost money are ignored.

🔟 Anchoring Bias

• An influencer announces "Earn €10,000/month easily!" The exaggerated claim makes a €2,000 program seem like a bargain to seize immediately.
• A fake discount: A product first shows an inflated price, then a discounted one, creating the illusion of a great deal.

1️⃣1️⃣ Conformity Pressure

• In a meeting, a manager proposes an obviously flawed strategy. No one speaks up, as everyone else nods along to avoid conflict.
• A person with a nuanced view on a polarizing issue adopts the majority opinion in their group to avoid social friction.

1️⃣2️⃣ Homophily Bias

• An environmental advocate only surrounds themselves with like-minded individuals. Any critique of certain solutions feels like an attack rather than a constructive debate.
• Business influencers on LinkedIn create a closed ecosystem, where they only share each other's posts, reinforcing their credibility without challenging each other’s views.

It’s time to claim your right to critique—or to support those who do so rationally, right? 😉