Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video518 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Minnesota Timberwolves results contain 26 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Framing Effect, and Recency Bias, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 27.2% saturation with 423 hits. Analysis detected 2,348 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,554 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 5.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (3,086 of 15,689 topics). This Minnesota Timberwolves is worse (more manipulative) than 80.30% of the peer group.
Minnesota Timberwolves
Topic details
Total words: 1,554
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

80% percentile
025507510080.3% percentile
5.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.6K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 27.2%27.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 1.7%1.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 14.3%14.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.4%3.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 17.6%17.6%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Topic 13.5%13.5%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Topic 12.0%12.0%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 9.2%9.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.7%2.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.7%1.7%

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%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 27.2%, sitewide 4.6%Framing Effect: Topic 14.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 19.2%Halo Effect: Topic 17.6%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 15.9%Recency Bias: Topic 13.5%, sitewide 2.7%Hindsight Bias: Topic 12.0%, sitewide 1.4%Availability Heuristic: Topic 10.8%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 9.3%, sitewide 7.5%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 9.2%, sitewide 3.7%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.5%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.1%Loss Aversion: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 2.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.9%Special Pleading: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 0.3%Overconfidence BiasSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos