Topic summary
⁠29%1 analyzed article/video815 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Richmond District results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Halo Effect, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 16% saturation with 520 hits. Analysis detected 1,526 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,260 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (14,701 of 22,694 topics). This Richmond District is better (less manipulative) than 64.80% of the peer group.
Richmond District
Topic details
Total words: 3,260
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

35% percentile
025507510035.2% percentile
2.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.3K 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 0.7%0.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.6%3.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 0.7%0.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 15.9%15.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.8%0.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.6%0.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.2%1.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.9%0.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.3%1.3%

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 0.7%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 19.2%Anecdotal: Topic 15.9%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 6.0%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.9%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Genetic Fallacy: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 1.4%Hindsight Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.4%Personal Incredulity: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 0.2%Composition/Division: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 0.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos