Drawn to Grisly Movies? This Psychologist Knows Why. ⁠90%

4/29/2026, 12:02:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Straw Man, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 38% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 526 faulty-reasoning hits from 179 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠90% (2,262 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.70% of the article peer group.

That’s contrary to what some people think is just common sense: that if you like watching horror movies, or play violent video games, or if you’re interested in seeing someone get injured — like in a car crash or a football game — then you must like the violence itself. 
Not necessarily, says Scrivner. 
It may actually have a lot to do with exploring danger from a place of safety — so you, too, don’t fall victim to the serial killer on TV or the monster in the basement. 
Coltan Scrivner joins us to talk about why it’s not so bad to be the weirdo in your friend group who’s seen all the “Saw” movies. 
And if you’re not sure whether that person is you, you can take Scrivner’s test to find out. 
GUEST – 
Coltan Scrivner | He’s an author and a psychologist at Arizona State University. 
His most recent book is “Morbidly Curious: A Scientist Explains Why We Can’t Look Away.” 
[Amazon|Bookshop] 
Airdate: Apr. 30 and May 2, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.6%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias10.1%This article: 38.0%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect38.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.6%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.9%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias27.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 27.9%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man27.9%This article: 11.7%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 19.6%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope19.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 19.6%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring19.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.6%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion19.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.1%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof10.1%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.2%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 30.2%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice30.2%This article: 14.5%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination14.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.9%

179 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker37%attributed speech112writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageColtan Scrivner • 4 words • 0.0% coverageColtan Scrivner • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageColtan Scrivner • 13 words • 0.0% coverageColtan Scrivner • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Coltan Scrivner

100%flagged-word coverage
67 attributed words100% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-48.2 ptsWriter: 48.2%Coltan Scrivner: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-23.2 ptsWriter: 23.2%Coltan Scrivner: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +21.5 ptsWriter: 0.9%Coltan Scrivner: 22.4%22.4%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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