Keyword summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,372 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stanford University results contain 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 7.3% saturation with 401 hits. Analysis detected 3,355 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,488 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠37% (23,907 of 37,536 keywords). This Stanford University is better (less manipulative) than 63.70% of the peer group.
Stanford University
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
⁠0%Lieutenant Governor1%
⁠0%Agriculture Commissioner1%
⁠0%Texas Supreme Court1%
⁠0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
⁠0%Running Back1%
⁠37%Stanford University (selected)3%
⁠100%Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%Mike Lewis60%
⁠100%Joni Balter60%
⁠100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
Keyword details
Total words: 5,488
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

36% percentile
025507510036.3% percentile
2.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.5K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

KeywordSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Keyword 3.4%3.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 5.0%5.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 4.8%4.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 1.7%1.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Keyword 0.2%0.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 4.5%4.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Keyword 2.6%2.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Keyword 0.6%0.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 1.3%1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Keyword 7.3%7.3%

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 3.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 5.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 4.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 1.7%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 4.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 5.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 4.6%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 7.3%, sitewide 3.3%In-Group Bias: Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Keyword 0.2%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Keyword 3.5%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Keyword 4.2%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 3.7%Hindsight Bias: Keyword 3.3%, sitewide 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos