Stefan Fatsis on the New Dictionary Decades in the Making89%

12/2/2025, 7:01:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Loss Aversion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 67.8% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 354 faulty-reasoning hits from 177 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83% and a BS Rank of 89% (1,896 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.70% of the article peer group.

What weighs five pounds, hasn’t been seen in print for 20 years, but still shapes the way we think about language? 
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary  and author Stefan Fatsis is here to tell us why it matters. 
Two decades ago, there were roughly 200 commercial lexicographers in the United States. 
Today, fewer than 50 remain. 
Stefan Fatisis’s new book, “Unabridged,” chronicles his time embedded at Merriam-Webster, defining nearly 90 words  only 14 of which made it into the dictionary. 
It’s hard getting a word into the dictionary, even if it’s been in use for a while. 
Take “microaggression,” for example. 
It’s been in consideration since 1974, and thanks to Fatsis, now appears in the new edition. 
Stefan Fatsis joins us to talk about how words make it into the dictionary, how they’re defined, and how they change culture. 
GUEST  
Stefan Fatsis | Author and journalist. 
His latest book is “Unabridged: The Thrill of (and Threat to) the Modern Dictionary.” 
[Bookshop | Amazon] 
Airdate: Dec. 4, 2025, at 9 a.m. and Dec. 6 at 11 a.m. 
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
28.2%
Availability Heuristic
2.3%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Confirmation Bias
9.6%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Framing Effect
67.8%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Halo Effect
12.4%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Horn Effect
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Loss Aversion
14.1%
Negativity Bias
10.7%
Optimism Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Anecdotal
11.3%
Appeal to Authority
24.9%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Composition/Division
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Hasty Generalization
9.6%
Middle Ground
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
9%
Red Herring
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Straw Man
0%
Tu Quoque
0%

177 words analyzed.

Analysis

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