Topic summary
⁠37%1 analyzed article/video1,419 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stu Holden results contain 28 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, and Hindsight Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 9.2% saturation with 391 hits. Analysis detected 2,795 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,257 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠35% (10,771 of 16,562 topics). This Stu Holden is better (less manipulative) than 65.00% of the peer group.
Stu Holden
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠35%Stu Holden (selected)3%
⁠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: 4,257
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

35% percentile
025507510035.0% percentile
2.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.3K 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 1.1%1.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 1.8%1.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.8%5.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.1%1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 9.2%9.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.2%2.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.7%0.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.7%1.7%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Topic 5.7%5.7%

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%Framing Effect: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 11.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 9.2%, sitewide 3.3%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 5.2%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 6.0%Hindsight Bias: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 1.4%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 3.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.5%Primacy Effect: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 0.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos