BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Optimism Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 46.5% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 405 faulty-reasoning hits from 200 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.1% and a BS Rank of 86% (2,437 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.50% of the article peer group.

The Booming team is hard at work on some new episodes coming out next year. 
In the meantime, we wanted to revisit some of our favorite stories this holiday season. 
We think this one will be particularly useful for those of you still doing some last-minute holiday shopping. 
It explores the ways AI is being used by some of your favorite retailers to get better at selling you stuff. 
This story first aired in December 2024 -- you can read the original story here: How Stores are Spying on You 
If you want to give Booming a gift this holiday season, you can give us a rating and review on your favorite podcast app. 
Finally, a big thank you from all of us at Booming. 
We appreciate everyone who listens to the show, and we hope you have a great holiday season. 
Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! 
If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/boomingnotes. 
Booming is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. 
Our editor is Carol Smith. 
Our producers are Lucy Soucek and Alec Cowan. 
Our hosts are Joshua McNichols and Monica Nickelsburg. 
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
10.5%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Confirmation Bias
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Framing Effect
46.5%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Halo Effect
7.5%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Horn Effect
0%
In-Group Bias
22.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Negativity Bias
21%
Optimism Bias
25%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Self-Serving Bias
14%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Anecdotal
0%
Appeal to Authority
7.5%
Appeal to Emotion
31.5%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Bandwagon
4.5%
Begging the Question
12%
Burden of Proof
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Composition/Division
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Middle Ground
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Red Herring
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Straw Man
0%
Tu Quoque
0%

200 words analyzed.

Analysis

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