STAT⁠42%

Up and down the ladder: The latest comings and goings ⁠40%

By Ed Silverman⁠61%

7/2/2026, 5:32:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 29.1% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 220 faulty-reasoning hits from 134 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠40% (12,773 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.30% of the article peer group.

Hired someone new and exciting? 
Promoted a rising star? 
Finally solved that hard-to-fill spot? 
Share the news with us, and we’ll share it with others. 
That’s right. 
Send us your changes, and we’ll find a home for them. 
Don’t be shy. 
Everyone wants to know who is coming and going. 
And here is our regular feature in which we highlight a different person each week. 
This time around, we note that Protillion Biosciences hired Robert Hollingsworth as chief scientific officer. 
Previously, he held the same role at Shoreline Therapeutics and, before that, he worked at Pfizer, where he was vice president and chief scientific officer of cancer vaccines and immunotherapeutics. 
But all work and no play can make for a dull chief scientific officer. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.5%Ed Silverman: 5.3%STAT: 3.2%Confirmation Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.6%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Ed Silverman: 3.3%STAT: 3.8%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.0%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Ed Silverman: 22.5%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect17.9%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.6%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.4%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 6.3%STAT: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.5%STAT: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Ed Silverman: 12.0%STAT: 8.3%Negativity Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.5%STAT: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.7%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%Ed Silverman: 1.0%STAT: 1.4%Halo Effect22.4%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.7%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.9%STAT: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Ed Silverman: 0.5%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect11.2%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.4%Ed Silverman: 6.8%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority22.4%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.6%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.7%Ed Silverman: 4.8%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization6.7%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.7%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.3%Bandwagon6.7%This article: 12.7%Ed Silverman: 6.7%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion12.7%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.2%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 3.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.9%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.3%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 4.2%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 3.3%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 14.5%STAT: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 29.1%Ed Silverman: 2.7%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination29.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.9%STAT: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Ed Silverman: 1.9%STAT: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.4%

134 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech119writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageProtillion Biosciences • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Indoctrination-32.8 ptsWriter: 32.8%Protillion Biosciences: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -18.5 ptsWriter: 18.5%Protillion Biosciences: 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.