Topic summary
⁠6%1 analyzed article/video2,310 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Radical Environmentalism results contain 46 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 4.6% saturation with 424 hits. Analysis detected 3,836 faulty-reasoning hits from 9,240 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (16,481 of 16,560 topics). This Radical Environmentalism is better (less manipulative) than 99.50% of the peer group.
Radical Environmentalism
Topic details
Total words: 9,240
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

1% percentile
02550751000.5% percentile
0.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles9.2K 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 3.5%3.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.6%4.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.7%1.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.5%0.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.6%1.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.8%0.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.8%1.8%

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 3.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Hindsight Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos