Topic summary
⁠59%1 analyzed article/video1,294 analyzed words
BS Summary: These AI Economics results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Halo Effect, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 12.4% saturation with 644 hits. Analysis detected 5,041 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,176 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠46% (8,948 of 16,562 topics). This AI Economics is better (less manipulative) than 54.00% of the peer group.
AI Economics
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠46%AI Economics (selected)3%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 5,176
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

46% percentile
025507510046.0% percentile
2.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.2K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 2.4%2.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.8%2.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 7.5%7.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.1%1.1%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 10.8%10.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.5%1.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.1%3.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 12.4%12.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.8%1.8%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Topic 3.1%3.1%

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: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 7.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Topic 12.4%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Authority: Topic 10.1%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 10.8%, sitewide 5.3%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 9.1%Halo Effect: Topic 8.5%, sitewide 6.7%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 6.9%Anecdotal: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.5%, sitewide 3.3%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 2.0%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Straw Man: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos