Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,336 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Royal Families results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Framing Effect, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 18.9% saturation with 1,011 hits. Analysis detected 7,411 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,344 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (5,549 of 16,562 topics). This Royal Families is worse (more manipulative) than 66.50% of the peer group.
Royal Families
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 5,344
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

67% percentile
025507510066.5% percentile
4.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.3K 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 12.1%12.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 18.9%18.9%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 13.2%13.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 7.7%7.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 12.0%12.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.4%3.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.4%0.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.2%0.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.6%2.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 15.2%15.2%

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 12.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 15.2%, sitewide 19.2%Halo Effect: Topic 18.9%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 7.7%, sitewide 15.9%Unattributed Quote: Topic 13.2%, sitewide 1.1%Anecdotal: Topic 12.0%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 11.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.4%, sitewide 3.3%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 3.6%, sitewide 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos