Books We Love: 202583%

By Lauren Antonoff Hart0% Daniel J. Schneider0%

12/15/2025, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Halo Effect, and Anchoring Bias, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 43.6% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 158 faulty-reasoning hits from 94 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.1% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,896 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.20% of the article peer group.

We projected the Book Signal. 
And you, dear readers, saved the day. 
Here's a list of the best books of 2025, recommended by Colorado Public Radio staff and friends. 
(If you contributed, we thank you!) 
Click on a cover to read a short review. 
You can also use the tags below to narrow the results by category. 
Books with a green sticker indicate fan favorites, with multiple submissions. 
Want to peruse previous archives? 
Here are the best books of 2023 and the best books of 2024. 
Submissions have been edited for style and clarity. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.4%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 15.2%Colorado Public Radio: 4.8%Anchoring Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 3.9%Colorado Public Radio: 6.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 12.1%Colorado Public Radio: 5.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.5%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 20.6%Colorado Public Radio: 26.7%Framing Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 18.1%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 29.4%Colorado Public Radio: 5.0%Halo Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 43.6%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 46.1%Colorado Public Radio: 7.6%In-Group Bias43.6%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 4.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 19.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 5.0%Colorado Public Radio: 6.6%Optimism Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 4.3%Colorado Public Radio: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 4.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 10.6%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 17.0%Colorado Public Radio: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.8%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 6.7%Colorado Public Radio: 4.9%Self-Serving Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 8.9%Colorado Public Radio: 3.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 31.9%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 27.3%Colorado Public Radio: 11.3%Appeal to Authority31.9%This article: 13.8%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 19.1%Colorado Public Radio: 13.0%Appeal to Emotion13.8%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 11.7%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 24.8%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Bandwagon11.7%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 14.5%Colorado Public Radio: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.6%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Lauren Antonoff Hart: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%

94 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.