Topic summary
⁠12%1 analyzed article/video2,314 analyzed words
BS Summary: These White House Initiatives results contain 28 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 6.5% saturation with 448 hits. Analysis detected 2,803 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,942 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (15,516 of 16,562 topics). This White House Initiatives is better (less manipulative) than 93.70% of the peer group.
White House Initiatives
Topic details
Total words: 6,942
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

6% percentile
02550751006.3% percentile
1.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles6.9K 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 6.5%6.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 2.1%2.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.3%3.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.9%1.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 0.6%0.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.7%1.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.5%1.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.6%1.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.4%2.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.3%0.3%

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 6.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 5.6%, sitewide 3.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.0%, sitewide 0.8%Straw Man: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 0.9%Primacy Effect: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 0.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos