Author summary
⁠78%1 analyzed article/video702 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Amanda Watford results contain 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.8% saturation with 374 hits. Analysis detected 1,474 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,106 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (2,237 of 6,515 authors). This Amanda Watford is worse (more manipulative) than 65.70% of the peer group.
Amanda Watford
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠66%Amanda Watford (selected)4%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 2,106
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

66% percentile
025507510065.7% percentile
3.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.1K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 3.3%3.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 1.4%1.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 1.1%1.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 0.5%0.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 4.6%4.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 3.2%3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Author 7.3%7.3%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 1.1%1.1%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Author 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 8.8%8.8%

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: Author 3.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 17.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 8.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 4.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 1.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 7.3%, sitewide 3.3%Optimism Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 5.6%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 4.0%Recency Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Indoctrination: Author 2.6%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 2.0%, sitewide 0.5%Pessimism Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.7%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.1%, sitewide 0.8%Burden of Proof: Author 0.5%, sitewide 0.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos