Topic summary
⁠66%1 analyzed article/video1,224 analyzed words
BS Summary: These China Myanmar Relations results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 12.5% saturation with 460 hits. Analysis detected 2,119 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,672 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (10,872 of 24,576 topics). This China Myanmar Relations is worse (more manipulative) than 55.80% of the peer group.
China Myanmar Relations
Topic details
Total words: 3,672
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

56% percentile
025507510055.8% percentile
2.6% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.7K 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 2.9%2.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.9%1.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.4%0.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 11.4%11.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 12.5%12.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.9%1.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.7%0.7%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 5.7%5.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.5%0.5%

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 2.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 11.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 12.5%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 6.0%Indoctrination: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 0.0%Anecdotal: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 4.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 0.0%Horn Effect: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 1.0%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos