Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Foraging results contain 28 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Optimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 6% saturation with 276 hits. Analysis detected 2,759 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,616 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Foraging is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Foraging
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 4,616
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.6K 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 6.0%6.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 0.1%0.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.7%4.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.0%3.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.0%3.0%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Topic 5.8%5.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.6%1.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.3%1.3%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.7%0.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.9%2.9%

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 6.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 0.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Nature: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%False Dilemma: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 1.5%Bandwagon: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Indoctrination: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.0%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 1.9%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos