BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 85.2% saturation with 132 hits. Analysis detected 290 faulty-reasoning hits from 155 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.9% and a BS Rank of 51% (15,105 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.60% of the article peer group.

But the drums could not be silent. 
They were always heard. 
When the land became dark, 
After the wicked sucked 
Virtue from the sun, 
The drums brought the light, 
And the feet were always listening. 
Informed by the past, 
They honored the Yoruba in movement, 
Backs and hands might surrender, 
But the feet never could. 
They brought beauty to the ugliest world. 
And the feet didn’t go anywhere without the song. 
The song believed the sum was better than the parts, 
So there was always a response to the call. 
You can hear it in the subtle intonations of the crowd, 
That what happened to you happened to the rest of us. 
*This is an excerpt from the poem "The Eyes Have It," by Lens award-winning contributor Chuck Perkins. 
It's excerpted by permission from his new book, Beautiful and Ugly Too, published by the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Press. 
* 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Chuck Perkins: 1.8%The Lens: 3.1%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Chuck Perkins: 1.8%The Lens: 2.2%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Chuck Perkins: 1.5%The Lens: 1.5%Optimism Bias5.8%This article: 3.2%Chuck Perkins: 0.8%The Lens: 1.2%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 2.6%Chuck Perkins: 0.6%The Lens: 5.6%Negativity Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Chuck Perkins: 3.4%The Lens: 0.9%In-Group Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Chuck Perkins: 1.1%The Lens: 0.5%Halo Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.5%Chuck Perkins: 3.4%The Lens: 2.6%Appeal to Authority13.5%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 3.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.1%Chuck Perkins: 1.8%The Lens: 4.1%Appeal to Emotion7.1%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.5%Chuck Perkins: 1.6%The Lens: 0.3%Composition/Division6.5%This article: 7.1%Chuck Perkins: 1.8%The Lens: 2.4%Anecdotal7.1%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.0%Chuck Perkins: 21.5%The Lens: 0.7%Unattributed Quote11.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 18.7%The Lens: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 85.2%Chuck Perkins: 21.3%The Lens: 3.4%Biased Writer Voice85.2%This article: 12.9%Chuck Perkins: 3.2%The Lens: 2.1%Indoctrination12.9%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 1.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chuck Perkins: 0.0%The Lens: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

155 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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