Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Blanche Meets With Epstein Accusers results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Self-Serving Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 11.4% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 1,907 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,310 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 15,769 topics). This Blanche Meets With Epstein Accusers is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Blanche Meets With Epstein Accusers
Topic details
Total words: 2,310
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.3K 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 11.4%11.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 11.3%11.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.9%3.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.6%0.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.4%2.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.1%1.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.7%0.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 2.7%2.7%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 2.3%2.3%

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: Topic 11.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 11.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 7.3%, sitewide 5.3%Halo Effect: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.7%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 3.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 2.7%Ad Hominem: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.6%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 0.0%Red Herring: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.7%False Dilemma: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 1.5%Special Pleading: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 1.4%Middle Ground: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 0.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos