Apps
Explore
Aspect DirectoryKnowledge GraphAnalysis Lenses
Learn
Get StartedWhy TellDearGuideArticlesEssentialsGlossaryFAQDocumentationProviders
DE — DeutschLogin

🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!

Values Invocation

Also Known As: Values signaling Abstract values appeal Virtue vagueness
Manipulation & Propaganda 💨 Hollow Rhetoric ID: values_invocation

Definition

A manipulative rhetorical pattern where a speaker invokes abstract values — 'our values', 'Western values', 'democratic values', 'family values' — without ever specifying what those values concretely demand in the situation at hand. The values function as emotional trump cards that end discussion, because who could argue against 'our values'?

Examples

"We must defend our values — that's what this country stands for."

"This policy is incompatible with our European values."

"As a company, we are guided by our core values of integrity, innovation, and respect."

Formal Logic Pattern
FOL Pattern
The First-Order Logic formula representing this reasoning pattern's logical structure.
FOL (First-Order Logic) uses quantifiers (∀ = for all, ∃ = there exists), connectives (∧ = and, ∨ = or, ⇒ = implies, ¬ = not), and predicates to capture the essential form of a reasoning pattern. For example, the Ad Hominem fallacy: Person(x) ∧ HasFlaw(x) ⇒ Invalid(Claim(x)). These patterns allow automated verification of logical validity.
View in glossary →

∃x∃v(Invocation(x) ∧ Value(v) ∧ Appeals(x,v) ∧ ¬∃d(Definition(d) ∧ Specifies(d,v)))
Formal Verification:
Formal Verification
Checks whether a reasoning pattern is logically valid or invalid using an automated theorem prover.
Formal verification uses an SMT (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) solver — specifically Z3 — to mathematically check whether an argument's logical structure is valid. Each reasoning pattern is translated into First-Order Logic and tested: Can the premises be true while the conclusion is false? If yes, it's formally invalid. If no, it's formally valid. Many real-world patterns (analogies, heuristics) cannot be fully captured in formal logic — these are marked as not formally decidable, which doesn't mean they're wrong.
View in glossary →
Not formally decidable

Verification Steps
Verification Steps
Binary yes/no questions that an AI must answer to detect a reasoning pattern in a text.
Each of the 452 aspects has verification steps — simple yes/no questions designed to systematically detect whether a pattern appears in a text. For ad hominem: "Does the argument attack a person rather than their claim?" For false dichotomy: "Are only two options presented when more exist?" This ensures consistent, reproducible analysis.
View in glossary →

Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:

  1. 1

    Does the statement invoke shared values (freedom, democracy, fairness, etc.)?

    Type: binary
  2. 2

    Are these values left undefined or unspecified in their concrete implications?

    Type: binary
  3. 3

    Could people with opposing positions both claim these same values?

    Type: binary
  4. 4

    Is the values invocation used to end debate rather than inform it?

    Type: binary
Deep Dive
The expandable detail section on each aspect page with examples, psychology, and counter-strategies.
The Deep Dive section provides in-depth information about each aspect: a real-world example showing the pattern in action, an explanation of why it works psychologically, practical advice on how to counter it, alternative names, and links to related aspects.
View in glossary →

Hierarchical Context

→ is a Manipulation & Propaganda

Try it in action

Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.

🔍 Text Analyzer

Scan a text for this pattern

Next →
🎭 Spin Doctor

Detect it in political speech

Next →
📰 Headline Decoder

Spot it in headlines

Next →
👴 Ask Your Uncle

Counter populist rhetoric

Next →