America’s Next 250 Years Are Ours to Build 55%

By Scott Nolan0%

7/3/2026, 5:01:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 36% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 582 faulty-reasoning hits from 333 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.9% and a BS Rank of 55% (9,898 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.80% of the article peer group.

On the eve of America’s 250th birthday, we wanted to hear from someone who has spent his career thinking about what comes next. 
Scott Nolan helped build propulsion systems at SpaceX, became a partner at Founders Fund, and then founded General Matter, a company working to enrich uranium in America. 
Today, he looks forward at what the next 250 years could bring, what they will demand of us, and why getting it right matters. 
This piece was originally published in Packy McCormick’s Substack, Not Boring, and we are pleased to republish it today. —The Editors 
To imagine what America might look like 250 years from now, a good place to start is what life was like in the colonies that would become the United States of America 250 years ago, on July 4, 1776. 
In 1776, we did not have running water, light bulbs, electricity, or gas stoves in our homes. 
We had no insulin, no penicillin, and no X-rays. 
We did not have cars, and we certainly didn’t have planes. 
We didn’t have trains or even horse-drawn streetcars. 
In 1776, there was no anesthesia. 
Instead, you were held down and fully conscious during surgery. 
Surgeons didn’t realize that they needed to wash their hands, and the average American was most likely to die from an infectious disease. 
We didn’t understand blood types, and blood transfusions could not be safely performed. 
Infant and maternal mortality were extraordinarily high. 
There was no synthetic fertilizer with which to grow food—we used animal manure—and no refrigeration to store it once harvested. 
Food supply was limited by season and geography, stretched with salt or smoke or ice. 
There was no telegraph. 
Paul Revere used a horse to warn that the British were coming. 
Storms arrived with even less warning; there was no weather forecasting. 
Because there was no real-time coordination across even modest distances, there were no standardized time zones. 
Every town kept its own time by the sun. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Scott Nolan: 8.8%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias11.7%This article: 15.3%Scott Nolan: 3.8%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic15.3%This article: 2.7%Scott Nolan: 0.7%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.6%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%Scott Nolan: 7.4%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect15.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Scott Nolan: 7.2%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.0%Scott Nolan: 19.6%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias21.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Scott Nolan: 4.1%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Scott Nolan: 1.7%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.1%Scott Nolan: 6.1%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority8.1%This article: 4.8%Scott Nolan: 1.2%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 36.0%Scott Nolan: 9.0%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization36.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.9%Scott Nolan: 4.3%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion9.9%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.8%Scott Nolan: 1.2%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.8%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Scott Nolan: 0.9%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.3%Scott Nolan: 0.8%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Scott Nolan: 1.6%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.9%Scott Nolan: 2.3%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice6.9%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Nolan: 0.0%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

333 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers25%attributed speech249writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageScott Nolan • 27 words • 0.0% coverageScott Nolan • 24 words • 0.0% coveragePacky McCormick • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Revere • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Nolan

100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words61% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Scott Nolan: 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.