Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,055 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Energy Economics results contain 11 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Halo Effect, and Optimism Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 10.6% saturation with 223 hits. Analysis detected 703 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,110 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (7,757 of 15,771 topics). This Energy Economics is worse (more manipulative) than 50.80% of the peer group.
Energy Economics
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 2,110
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

51% percentile
025507510050.8% percentile
3.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.1K 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 2.0%2.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 10.6%10.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.7%1.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 3.5%3.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 3.1%3.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 5.1%5.1%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Topic 1.0%1.0%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Topic 1.8%1.8%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 1.2%1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%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 10.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 19.2%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 6.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.1%, sitewide 3.3%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos