Topic summary
⁠52%2 analyzed articles/videos3,407 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16% saturation with 2,182 hits. Analysis detected 7,854 faulty-reasoning hits from 13,628 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠24% (18,709 of 24,564 topics). This Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities is better (less manipulative) than 76.20% of the peer group.
Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities
Topic details
Total words: 13,628
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

24% percentile
025507510023.8% percentile
1.6% BS Score2 analyzed articles13.6K 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 0.7%0.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.5%2.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.3%3.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.4%0.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.8%0.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.4%3.4%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.5%0.5%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 2.0%2.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 16.0%16.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.9%1.9%

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 0.7%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 16.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.5%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos