Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,742 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Insider Trading In Politics results contain 37 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Hasty Generalization, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 7.9% saturation with 548 hits. Analysis detected 4,078 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,968 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠10% (13,907 of 15,350 topics). This Insider Trading In Politics is better (less manipulative) than 90.60% of the peer group.
Insider Trading In Politics
Topic details
Total words: 6,968
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

9% percentile
02550751009.4% percentile
1.6% BS Score1 analyzed articles7K 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 1.6%1.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.4%1.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 7.9%7.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.2%0.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.5%0.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.3%1.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.3%5.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.2%1.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 4.0%4.0%

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 1.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 7.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.6%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Indoctrination: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 0.0%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos