Stefan Fatsis on the New Dictionary Decades in the Making90%

12/2/2025, 7:01:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Loss Aversion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 67.8% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 354 faulty-reasoning hits from 177 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83% and a BS Rank of 90% (2,298 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.50% of the article peer group.

What weighs five pounds, hasn’t been seen in print for 20 years, but still shapes the way we think about language? 
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary  and author Stefan Fatsis is here to tell us why it matters. 
Two decades ago, there were roughly 200 commercial lexicographers in the United States. 
Today, fewer than 50 remain. 
Stefan Fatisis’s new book, “Unabridged,” chronicles his time embedded at Merriam-Webster, defining nearly 90 words  only 14 of which made it into the dictionary. 
It’s hard getting a word into the dictionary, even if it’s been in use for a while. 
Take “microaggression,” for example. 
It’s been in consideration since 1974, and thanks to Fatsis, now appears in the new edition. 
Stefan Fatsis joins us to talk about how words make it into the dictionary, how they’re defined, and how they change culture. 
GUEST  
Stefan Fatsis | Author and journalist. 
His latest book is “Unabridged: The Thrill of (and Threat to) the Modern Dictionary.” 
[Bookshop | Amazon] 
Airdate: Dec. 4, 2025, at 9 a.m. and Dec. 6 at 11 a.m. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias28.2%This article: 2.3%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic2.3%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 67.8%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect67.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 12.4%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect12.4%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion14.1%This article: 10.7%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 11.3%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal11.3%This article: 24.9%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority24.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.6%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization9.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 9.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

177 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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