America at 300: Imagining the next half-century of change ⁠52%

By Joel Achenbach⁠0%

7/1/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Hindsight Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 64.6% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 290 faulty-reasoning hits from 96 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (10,545 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.80% of the article peer group.

In April 1976, three months before the American bicentennial, two guys no one had ever heard of formed a little company called Apple. 
They were building what were called “microcomputers.” 
The traditional tech companies of the time built large mainframe computers. 
Small computers were of interest to hobbyists. 
They were a bit like toys. 
But the two nobodies, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, who were working out of a house in suburban California, believed they could make microcomputers that nontechnical people would find useful in everyday life. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 1.8%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 34.4%Joel Achenbach: 23.2%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias34.4%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Joel Achenbach: 14.1%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect9.4%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.5%Joel Achenbach: 2.9%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 17.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 34.4%Joel Achenbach: 8.6%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias34.4%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Joel Achenbach: 1.6%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 1.6%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 24.0%Joel Achenbach: 6.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect24.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 34.4%Joel Achenbach: 8.6%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem34.4%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.8%Joel Achenbach: 6.5%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization18.8%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 8.6%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.0%Joel Achenbach: 7.6%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal24.0%This article: 34.4%Joel Achenbach: 8.6%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman34.4%This article: 6.3%Joel Achenbach: 1.6%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.3%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 64.6%Joel Achenbach: 24.7%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice64.6%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joel Achenbach: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

96 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker34%attributed speech63writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Jobs • 33 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Steve Jobs

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+54.0 ptsWriter: 46.0%Steve Jobs: 100.0%100.0%

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.