Did our modern human ancestors and Neanderthals share a common culture? 43%

By Jackie Flynn Mogensen0%

7/6/2026, 7:24:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 28.2% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 814 faulty-reasoning hits from 362 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.3% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,662 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.80% of the article peer group.

Scientists have long known that ancient Homo sapiens and Neanderthals lived alongside each other for thousands of years—until that is, Neanderthals went extinct some 40,000 years ago. 
That includes mating—most of the world’s population carries Neanderthal DNA to this day. 
But beyond these genetic remnants, the exact nature of any interactions between our species and Neanderthals is much more of a mystery. 
Now a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA argues that at least some Neanderthals and modern humans may have shared certain cultural practices. 
The research centers on fossil evidence discovered inside a cave in what is now Türkiye called Üçağızlı II. 
Fossils suggest that Neanderthals occupied Üçağızlı II Cave from around 77,000 to 59,000 years ago and that the cave was then occupied by modern humans until around 47,000 years ago. 
The study authors don’t explicitly say that the two groups overlapped in their occupancy of the cave, but the evidence suggests they shared previously unrecognized behavior patterns. 
The Neanderthal and H. sapiens fossils were found at “different layers” in the cave, indicating that they were there in different timeframes, but “they are associated with remarkably similar stone tool technologies, hunting strategies and overall ways of life,” says İsmail Baykara, the study’s lead author and a professor at Gaziantep University in Türkiye. 
One of the “biggest surprises,” Baykara says, was that both Neanderthals and modern humans appear to have shared a penchant for collecting the shells of Columbella rustica, a kind of mollusk that can be found along the Mediterranean coast, despite “many other shell species being available,” Baykara says. 
It’s possible that both modern humans and Neanderthals might have used the mollusk shells for decorative purposes, but more research is needed. 
This mollusk-collecting behavior was previously thought to be “exclusive to modern humans,” Baykara says, adding that the finding “forces us to reconsider the nature of cultural boundaries and perhaps even cognitive capacities among different human groups in the Levant.” 
Ultimately, the fossils suggest that “even under intense survival pressures, both groups placed high value on potentially symbolic behaviors,” Baykara says. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.2%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 4.4%Scientific American: 3.0%Confirmation Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.1%Scientific American: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 4.5%Scientific American: 2.6%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 9.4%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.3%Scientific American: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.7%Scientific American: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 2.4%Scientific American: 4.2%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.6%Scientific American: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.4%Scientific American: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 3.7%Scientific American: 3.0%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.3%Scientific American: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.6%Scientific American: 3.3%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.5%Scientific American: 0.9%Halo Effect10.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 2.3%Scientific American: 0.8%Recency Bias8.3%This article: 7.5%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.9%Scientific American: 0.2%Primacy Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.2%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 13.7%Scientific American: 4.3%Appeal to Authority23.2%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.0%Scientific American: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.7%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 11.4%Scientific American: 4.1%Hasty Generalization20.7%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.8%Scientific American: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.8%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.9%Scientific American: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion10.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.1%Scientific American: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.9%Scientific American: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.1%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.3%Scientific American: 0.6%Burden of Proof6.1%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.3%Scientific American: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 10.8%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.7%Scientific American: 0.3%Composition/Division10.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.5%Scientific American: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 28.2%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 2.6%Scientific American: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)28.2%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.7%Scientific American: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.6%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy3.6%This article: 14.9%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.7%Scientific American: 0.7%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.1%Scientific American: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.7%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 2.7%Scientific American: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice15.7%This article: 6.1%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.0%Scientific American: 1.8%Indoctrination6.1%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.9%Scientific American: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

362 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker45%attributed speech200writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageİsmail Baykara • 54 words • 100.0% coverageİsmail Baykara • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageİsmail Baykara • 39 words • 0.0% coverageİsmail Baykara • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

İsmail Baykara

100%flagged-word coverage
162 attributed words100% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote+33.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%İsmail Baykara: 33.3%33.3%Biased Writer Voice-28.5 ptsWriter: 28.5%İsmail Baykara: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%İsmail Baykara: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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