Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Fred Armisen results contain 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Halo Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 5.8% saturation with 279 hits. Analysis detected 1,729 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,804 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Fred Armisen is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Fred Armisen
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 4,804
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.8K 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 2.1%2.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 0.3%0.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.1%1.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.7%2.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.3%1.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.4%1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Topic 5.8%5.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.7%0.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.9%0.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.8%3.8%

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 2.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 15.9%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 0.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.5%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.6%, sitewide 0.8%False Dilemma: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 1.5%Indoctrination: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 0.0%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.1%Primacy Effect: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 0.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos