Topic summary
⁠18%1 analyzed article/video1,139 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Robin Hood Law results contain 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 7.2% saturation with 245 hits. Analysis detected 1,414 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,417 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠17% (13,798 of 16,562 topics). This Robin Hood Law is better (less manipulative) than 83.30% of the peer group.
Robin Hood Law
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠17%Robin Hood Law (selected)2%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 3,417
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

17% percentile
025507510016.7% percentile
1.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.4K 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 7.2%7.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.5%3.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.4%2.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.2%1.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.3%1.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.8%0.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.2%1.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.4%1.4%

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 7.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 5.3%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.7%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.5%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 0.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 0.3%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos