Topic summary
⁠72%2 analyzed articles/videos1,961 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Uap results contain 41 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 9.2% saturation with 721 hits. Analysis detected 6,025 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,844 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠34% (16,219 of 24,545 topics). This Uap is better (less manipulative) than 66.10% of the peer group.
Uap
Topic details
Total words: 7,844
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

34% percentile
025507510033.9% percentile
1.9% BS Score2 analyzed articles7.8K 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 3.9%3.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 2.5%2.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 0.8%0.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.2%0.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.6%3.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 2.1%2.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 4.7%4.7%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.7%0.7%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Topic 0.3%0.3%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%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 3.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 9.2%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.7%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 6.7%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 6.3%, sitewide 4.6%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.3%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.5%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 2.2%Bandwagon: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos