STAT⁠60%

Up and down the ladder: The latest comings and goings ⁠49%

By Ed Silverman⁠74%

7/31/2026, 7:47:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Availability Heuristic, and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 37.9% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 151 faulty-reasoning hits from 103 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (14,039 of 27,226 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.60% of the article peer group.

Hired someone new and exciting? 
Promoted a rising star? 
Finally solved that hard-to-fill spot? 
Share the news with us, and we’ll share it with others. 
That’s right. 
Send us your changes, and we’ll find a home for them. 
Don’t be shy. 
Everyone wants to know who is coming and going. 
And here is our regular feature in which we highlight a different person each week. 
This time around, we note that Bexorg hired Bruce Car as chief scientific officer. 
But all work and no play can make for a dull chief scientific officer. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 5.1%STAT: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.0%STAT: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%Ed Silverman: 3.5%STAT: 3.2%Availability Heuristic13.6%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.7%STAT: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.2%STAT: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Ed Silverman: 18.2%STAT: 6.7%Framing Effect12.6%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.4%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.9%STAT: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 5.5%STAT: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%Ed Silverman: 1.2%STAT: 1.5%Pessimism Bias13.6%This article: 13.6%Ed Silverman: 10.6%STAT: 7.3%Negativity Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.7%STAT: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.8%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.2%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.8%STAT: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.5%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.6%STAT: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.2%STAT: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 6.2%STAT: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.6%STAT: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.7%Ed Silverman: 4.5%STAT: 3.6%Hasty Generalization8.7%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.7%Ed Silverman: 0.4%STAT: 0.4%Bandwagon8.7%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 5.8%STAT: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.0%STAT: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.9%STAT: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.6%Ed Silverman: 2.4%STAT: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.6%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.8%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 3.6%STAT: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 2.4%STAT: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 37.9%Ed Silverman: 12.6%STAT: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice37.9%This article: 2.9%Ed Silverman: 2.8%STAT: 1.8%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.6%STAT: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 21.4%Ed Silverman: 1.4%STAT: 2.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…21.4%

103 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker14%attributed speech89writer words
Selected voice

Bexorg

0%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-43.8 ptsWriter: 43.8%Bexorg: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -24.7 ptsWriter: 24.7%Bexorg: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Bexorg: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.