Topic summary
⁠0%3 analyzed articles/videos1,940 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Hunger Strikes results contain 38 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 8.3% saturation with 1,844 hits. Analysis detected 13,274 faulty-reasoning hits from 22,332 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠10% (14,183 of 15,650 topics). This Hunger Strikes is better (less manipulative) than 90.60% of the peer group.
Hunger Strikes
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 22,332
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

9% percentile
02550751009.4% percentile
1.6% BS Score3 analyzed articles22.3K 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 6.6%6.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 8.3%8.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 6.9%6.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.1%0.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.7%2.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.9%1.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.7%0.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.1%0.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.6%1.6%

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 6.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 8.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 6.9%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 8.1%Anecdotal: Topic 8.0%, sitewide 5.2%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.3%, sitewide 3.3%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos