NTD100%

German Audience Moved by Shen Yun Documentary 99%

7/22/2026, 4:30:38 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Representativeness Heuristic, and Overconfidence Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 62% saturation with 114 hits. Analysis detected 911 faulty-reasoning hits from 184 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 99.6% and a BS Rank of 99% (271 of 21,886 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 98.80% of the video peer group.

Also, ich fand den Film äußerst spannend, sehr beeindruckend. 
Ich hatte ja vor einigen Jahren, also in Berlin die Chance gehabt, äh live bei einer Show dabei zu sein. 
Ähm und ich war damals schon wirklich sehr beeindruckt von den ganzen Bewegungen, von der Musik, von der Harmonie, von Bewegung und Musik. 
Und jetzt gerade durch den Film noch mal habe ich einen ganz anderen Blick bekommen auf die auf die auf die Kulissen dahinter, wie das alles abläuft, wie die Tänzer damit umgehen und dass sie trotz diesen äh starken diesen vielen Drohungen ähm diesen Fokus behalten und nach dieser Perfektion streben und es auch bei jeder ihrer Performan äh aus, also bei jeder ihrer Performanzen ähm so ausstrahlen, diese Perfektion und dieses diesen Fokus trotz dieser Bedrohung, den sie ständig ausgesetzt sind. 
Ich wünsche Shenün, dass sie durch die Liebe, das ist ja eigentlich die stärkste Kraft, die Liebe, egal, Liebe zu dem, was man macht, Liebe zu allem und dass das bewahrt wird und dass sie dadurch auch die Kraft ziehen und weitermachen. 
Oh. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.9%NTD: 15.6%Confirmation Bias10.9%This article: 12.5%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias12.5%This article: 14.7%NTD: 12.2%Availability Heuristic14.7%This article: 44.6%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic44.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 44.6%NTD: 9.2%Overconfidence Bias44.6%This article: 27.2%NTD: 22.8%Framing Effect27.2%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 27.7%NTD: 9.9%Optimism Bias27.7%This article: 0.5%NTD: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 17.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 8.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 53.3%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect53.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.5%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias12.5%This article: 4.9%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 14.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.5%NTD: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 44.6%NTD: 17.3%Hasty Generalization44.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.6%NTD: 22.3%Appeal to Emotion26.6%This article: 23.4%NTD: 6.1%Begging the Question23.4%This article: 11.4%NTD: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.5%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division0.5%This article: 28.3%NTD: 6.3%Anecdotal28.3%This article: 44.6%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman44.6%This article: 62.0%NTD: 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)62.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

184 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.