This humpback whale hunting strategy has been out of sight  until now 16%

By Priyanka Runwal0%

7/22/2026, 1:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 14.7% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 676 faulty-reasoning hits from 592 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.7% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,525 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.60% of the article peer group.

Humpback whales are known for their ingenious hunting tactics. 
One of the most sophisticated strategies involves as many as 20 whales working together to create a “net” of bubbles underwater that rise to trap fish and krill near the ocean surface. 
Now, a recent study provides the first documentation of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) teaming up to feed at the seafloor too. 
The hunting party consists of two to four whales that arrive simultaneously at the bottom of the ocean and roll to their sides while moving closer to one another. 
They orient head-to-head and open their mouths nearly synchronously to capture sand lances  small, eel-like fish that typically burrow or school along the sandy seafloor at night. 
Researchers report this coordinated hunting technique July 2 in Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 
“It’s a really exciting study,” says Luke Rendell, a marine biologist at the University of St Andrews in Scotland who was not involved in the work. 
The new findings suggest that there’s a lot more complexity to how humpback whales make their living “than we’ve maybe previously appreciated,” he says. 
Researchers have long observed humpback whales devouring sand lances off the coast of Massachusetts in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 
A 2014 study documented these whales producing a unique “double pulse” call to communicate exclusively while bottom-feeding, mainly at night. 
Suspecting that the animals may be calling to coordinate hunting at the seafloor, the researchers used movement data, audio and video recordings from whales tagged in 2018 to study their behavior. 
“When we first deployed these tags and got some of the footage back, it was crazy,” says Jeremy Goldbogen, a marine biologist at Stanford University. 
In 87 out of 110 benthic-hunting events involving seven Stellwagen Bank humpback whales, Goldbogen and his colleagues observed the animals working in groups. 
They formed alliances with one to three other whales, all pointing their heads at each other and moving closer until their snouts almost touched. 
In near unison, the majestic creatures opened their mouths to scarf down sand lances shooting from the sediment. 
While most of these observations came from tags on three individuals  Wonderland, Bolide and Bombay  the researchers noted a consistency in the groups’ behavior. 
The tagged animals and their cohunters arrived at about the same time to the seafloor; they often assumed the same position during hunting events; and they opened their mouths nearly simultaneously to feed. 
“I’m convinced that this is cooperative behavior,” Goldbogen says, as opposed to whales merely aggregating to feed. 
He and his colleagues speculate that this benthic hunting strategy evolved so that whales could take advantage of sand lances’ burrowing and dense schooling behavior. 
In Stellwagen Bank, the research team has seen individual humpback whales switching between surface bubble-net feeding and benthic hunting. 
It’s like they’re “playing two sports that have completely different skill sets to be successful,” says Ari Friedlaender, a marine biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. 
But the research team does not know  and hopes to find out  whether the same whale groups that feed together near the ocean surface also work in tandem at the seafloor. 
Rendell also wonders if and how individuals are related to each other in these benthic hunting parties and whether the crew remains consistent over the years. 
Still, he says what amazes him is that even in one of the best-studied humpback whale populations in the world, there are still surprises and complexities to unravel. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Priyanka Runwal: 4.2%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 9.6%Priyanka Runwal: 3.2%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias9.6%This article: 10.1%Priyanka Runwal: 3.4%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 13.5%Priyanka Runwal: 4.5%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic13.5%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Priyanka Runwal: 3.2%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias6.8%This article: 4.7%Priyanka Runwal: 1.6%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.7%Priyanka Runwal: 4.9%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias14.7%This article: 4.1%Priyanka Runwal: 1.4%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Priyanka Runwal: 1.0%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Priyanka Runwal: 0.7%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.1%Priyanka Runwal: 1.4%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority4.1%This article: 2.9%Priyanka Runwal: 1.0%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.9%Priyanka Runwal: 3.8%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.5%Priyanka Runwal: 3.2%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.5%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.6%Priyanka Runwal: 1.9%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division5.6%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.9%Priyanka Runwal: 4.2%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice5.9%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Priyanka Runwal: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

592 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers34%attributed speech393writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLuke Rendell • 26 words • 0.0% coverageLuke Rendell • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJeremy Goldbogen • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageJeremy Goldbogen • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJeremy Goldbogen • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAri Friedlaender • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageLuke Rendell • 26 words • 0.0% coverageLuke Rendell • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jeremy Goldbogen

100%flagged-word coverage
67 attributed words34% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice+20.8 ptsWriter: 4.6%Jeremy Goldbogen: 25.4%25.4%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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