The Past and Future of Marriage 58%

6/2/2026, 2:23:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 224 faulty-reasoning hits from 166 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.8% and a BS Rank of 58% (8,963 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.70% of the article peer group.

Coontz is an expert on family and gender, and she’s written about marriage before, so she’s well-placed to explain why marriage rates have fallen  even as most people still think of it as a profoundly important commitment. 
Women today are less certain than men about wanting to get married in the first place. 
And divorce rates among those who do tie the knot are the lowest they’ve been in decades. 
Coontz says the changes are because of a complicated mix of shifting expectations, gender roles and sexual norms that have resulted in today’s confused understanding of marriage. 
She’s joining us to talk about how to chart a course forward. 
GUEST  
Stephanie Coontz | She’s the director of research and public education for the council on contemporary families. 
She’s also a professor emeritus at The Evergreen State College. 
Her latest book is called “For Better and Worse: The Complicated Past and Challenging Future of Marriage.” 
Airdate: June 3, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.6%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect0.0%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: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error16.3%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%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: 10.2%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias10.2%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: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 39.2%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority39.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.6%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization9.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.3%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.3%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%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: 16.3%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.3%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: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 7.2%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination7.2%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: 0.0%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

166 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker43%attributed speech95writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Coontz • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Coontz • 17 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Coontz • 10 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Coontz • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Stephanie Coontz

76%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination-12.6 ptsWriter: 12.6%Stephanie Coontz: 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.