Topic summary
⁠46%4 analyzed articles/videos3,691 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Beijing results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 11.1% saturation with 1,586 hits. Analysis detected 11,575 faulty-reasoning hits from 14,253 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (12,535 of 16,562 topics). This Beijing is better (less manipulative) than 75.70% of the peer group.
Beijing
Topic ranking list
Topic details

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

24% percentile
025507510024.3% percentile
2.0% BS Score4 analyzed articles14.3K 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 8.9%8.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.1%2.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 11.1%11.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.6%3.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.0%2.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.7%0.7%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 1.1%1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Topic 0.4%0.4%

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: Topic 8.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 11.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 5.9%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.9%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 3.1%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos