Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,055 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Pension Fund Investments results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 51.3% saturation with 1,624 hits. Analysis detected 5,057 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,164 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 6.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (2,742 of 16,562 topics). This Pension Fund Investments is worse (more manipulative) than 83.40% of the peer group.
Pension Fund Investments
Topic details
Total words: 3,164
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

83% percentile
025507510083.4% percentile
6.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.2K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 51.3%51.3%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 15.1%15.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Topic 8.2%8.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.8%0.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.6%0.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.7%3.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 11.1%11.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 12.4%12.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.4%1.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Framing Effect: Topic 51.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 16.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 11.1%, sitewide 15.9%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 15.1%, sitewide 3.7%Confirmation Bias: Topic 12.4%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Topic 12.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 9.1%Bandwagon: Topic 8.2%, sitewide 2.2%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.0%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 4.6%Begging the Question: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 1.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 4.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Tu Quoque: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 0.2%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.2%Red Herring: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 0.7%Genetic Fallacy: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.4%Burden of Proof: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 0.4%Special Pleading: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 0.3%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos