In Defense of Elites, with Richard Hanania ⁠20%

By Coleman Hughes⁠55%

7/13/2026, 2:02:08 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Primacy Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 72.7% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 339 faulty-reasoning hits from 66 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠20% (17,706 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.90% of the article peer group.

Richard Hanania is a political scientist, writer, and one of the more interesting and unpredictable thinkers working today. 
He first came to prominence as a critic of woke ideology and the legal architecture that enforces it, most thoroughly in his book <em>The Origins of Woke</em>. 
His new book, <em>Kakistocracy: Why Populism Ends in Disaster</em>, goes in what appears … 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 40.9%Coleman Hughes: 6.5%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias40.9%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 18.3%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 3.0%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 2.1%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 72.7%Coleman Hughes: 15.3%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect72.7%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.6%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 3.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Coleman Hughes: 8.7%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias21.2%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 12.8%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 27.3%Coleman Hughes: 4.6%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect27.3%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 8.4%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 68.2%Coleman Hughes: 3.1%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect68.2%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 2.2%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 68.2%Coleman Hughes: 9.2%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority68.2%This article: 21.2%Coleman Hughes: 4.4%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma21.2%This article: 21.2%Coleman Hughes: 8.7%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope21.2%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 19.6%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 1.0%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 3.1%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 2.5%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 4.2%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 9.9%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 40.9%Coleman Hughes: 3.9%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)40.9%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 4.2%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 59.1%Coleman Hughes: 25.4%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice59.1%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Coleman Hughes: 13.4%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 62.1%Coleman Hughes: 6.1%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…62.1%

66 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker89%attributed speech7writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Hanania • 18 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Hanania • 27 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Hanania • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Richard Hanania

100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-45.8 ptsWriter: 100.0%Richard Hanania: 54.2%54.2%Attempt to Sell a Product +69.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Richard Hanania: 69.5%69.5%

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.