Topic summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos1,742 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Liv Golf results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Self-Serving Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 14.2% saturation with 988 hits. Analysis detected 5,819 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,968 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠26% (11,443 of 15,327 topics). This Liv Golf is better (less manipulative) than 74.70% of the peer group.
Liv Golf
Topic details
Total words: 6,968
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

25% percentile
025507510025.3% percentile
2.1% BS Score2 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 6.6%6.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.7%3.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.0%1.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.0%1.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 14.2%14.2%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.8%1.8%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.8%0.8%

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 6.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 14.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 5.3%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 6.1%, sitewide 3.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.0%Ad Hominem: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.9%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 2.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 0.0%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos