Keyword summary
58% 6 analyzed articles/videos 3,371 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chinatown results contain 44 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Negativity Bias , and Availability Heuristic , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 15.1% saturation with 2,532 hits . Analysis detected 14,774 faulty-reasoning hits from 16,734 analyzed words across 6 articles, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of 25% (26,735 of 35,444 keywords). This Chinatown is better (less manipulative) than 75.40% of the peer group. Chinatown
Keyword details
Total words: 16,734
Article count: 6
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed keywords
25% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 24.6% percentile 2.0% BS Score6 analyzed articles16.7K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Keyword 6.1% 6.1% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Keyword 15.1% 15.1% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Keyword 3.6% 3.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Keyword 8.5% 8.5% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Keyword 3.7% 3.7% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Keyword 3.5% 3.5% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Keyword 0.2% 0.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Keyword 5.3% 5.3% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Keyword 0.9% 0.9% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Keyword 3.4% 3.4% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% Framing Effect: Keyword 15.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Keyword 6.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 8.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Keyword 3.6%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Keyword 5.3%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Keyword 3.7%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Keyword 3.5%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Keyword 4.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Keyword 3.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Keyword 4.7%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 3.0%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Keyword 4.9%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.2%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 2.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 1.9% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Keyword rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst