Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video477 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chinese Food results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Representativeness Heuristic, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 15.3% saturation with 219 hits. Analysis detected 2,162 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,431 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 6.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (2,797 of 16,562 topics). This Chinese Food is worse (more manipulative) than 83.10% of the peer group.
Chinese Food
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 1,431
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

83% percentile
025507510083.1% percentile
6.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.4K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 0.7%0.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 0.8%0.8%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 15.3%15.3%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Topic 11.7%11.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 11.3%11.3%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Topic 9.2%9.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.1%2.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 6.6%6.6%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 8.0%8.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 9.9%9.9%

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 15.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Topic 11.9%, sitewide 8.1%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 11.7%, sitewide 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 11.3%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 9.9%, sitewide 6.0%Confirmation Bias: Topic 9.8%, sitewide 7.5%Recency Bias: Topic 9.2%, sitewide 2.7%Availability Heuristic: Topic 7.3%, sitewide 9.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 8.7%, sitewide 6.9%Anecdotal: Topic 8.1%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 8.0%, sitewide 4.0%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 6.9%, sitewide 4.6%Halo Effect: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 6.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 3.1%Composition/Division: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 0.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.7%Bandwagon: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos