Let me describe two of the fallacies, which bother me often.
The first I'll call the "culture shock" fallacy, or maybe the "future shock" fallacy. This is the idea that 'humankind is experiencing accelerating change', which was the presumption of the bubble-dwelling but well-intentioned book Future Shock. You could read a version of this fallacy in almost any era which has provided literature. No matter what the actual seriousness of the problems on Earth, things always appear to be moving too fast. People who were comfortable become alarmed at change, and write books about how abnormal the rate-of-change is. If the change is positive for others, those people will say that change hasn't come fast enough.
Clearly the 'shock' that most people in the world are experiencing at any given time has very little to do with technological progress or demographic change, and much more to do with how people are being treated by governments, institutions, corporations, and each other. There are other factors of course -- weather, disaster, novelty, loss. But, let's be clear: the invasion of Iraq caused vastly more global and individual shock than any progeny of silicon valley engineers. And the shock of being invaded has always been the same. It's the invading we need to stop -- or the lobbying, the privileges, the elitism, the bullying, etc. -- not the 'rate-of-change'. We need to be aware that the seriousness of the wars in Africa over the resources needed to produce our cell-phones, are causing much more serious human harm than any fashionable augmented-reality game. We need to see that the 'rate-of-change' during WWII was vastly greater and more harmful than anything described or predicted in Future Shock. Stopping the wrong technologies, and promoting the right ones, can happen if we ever make progress in the fight for a real participatory democracy.
There's something deeper that bothers me about the deaf "future shock" presupposition. Culture shock is an individual phenomenon. You can only experience so much shock, because you're just a human being, basically identical to people throughout human history. You also have just as much ability to adapt. You might share worry with those around you, and that can amplify your feelings of shock, sometimes, and dampen them, other times. But the way we cope with change is quite individual. I remember that, as a young consulting engineer, working in Japan for a year, I experienced far more culture shock on my return to the US than at any point in Asia. Sometimes new cultures are exciting, old cultures are an albatross -- and this is not because of buildings, or literature, or music, or films -- but because culture is in the human brain, and we experience culture through our interactions with people. Those interactions can be sour, or wonderful, and they change easily, which may or not produce shock in us.
But none of that has changed, throughout human history, because we're the same people.
We are animals, and have been the same animals for around 50,000 years. The causes of misery are not new. But sometimes we ignore the major factors in our search for obscure, possibly non-existent factors with an academic tone. We don't go around saying "there's a paradigm shift going on among cats: because of youtube videos, domestic cats are experiencing a kind of cultural change that they've never experienced before. Can they cope?" Cats will cognitively cope with the paparazzi paradigm, or not, on a case-by-case basis. Kindness towards them is their more critical concern. The same is true for people.
The second fallacy ... well, I should just call it 'age discrimination'. It's the idea, generally speaking, that people 1,000 years ago were somehow more 'primitive' or more 'stupid' than we are. This is obviously the same kind of discrimination that continues against native peoples today, or the working poor at any time. Thanks in part to Franz Boas, the profession of anthropology took this fallacy to the trash-heap long ago, but it still survives in all kinds of modern bigotry. With nothing but cash-backed corporate-propaganda driving technology discussion today, of course indoctrinated future-enthusiasts will snicker superficially at the past. My favorite example is a NOVA episode where some modern construction engineers concluded that a sketch for a giant wooden crossbow, by Leonardo da Vinci, was fantastically antique, uninformed, and incorrect. Over the hour, we follow the engineers as they learn that they have no real experience with timber mechanical engineering, and Leonardo's sketch was exactly right. Forget whether or not da Vinci was a genius -- why did they believe that they, in their lifetimes, somehow accumulated more skill with wood than a person 500 years ago?
So, why do I find a connection between that 'modern man' hubris, and the 'shock' notion that people will need 'new tools to cope' with change?
In both cases, pundits have managed not to think of others as real people, like themselves, with full lives, full of difficulties, bursting with energy and ability. This is the nature of bigotry. And, frankly, it's just bad science. Instead, admire the craftsperson of a thousand years ago. Good luck trying to recreate anything they did! And believe that people today can cope with change. But do your best to make sure that everyone treats each other with respect and human kindness. We've a great deal of work ahead of us.