Author summary
0%2 analyzed articles/videos305 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Amber Duke results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 25.7% saturation with 313 hits. Analysis detected 2,731 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,220 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 7% and a BS Rank of 91% (629 of 6,318 authors). This Amber Duke is worse (more manipulative) than 90.10% of the peer group.
Amber Duke
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
91%Amber Duke (selected)7%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 1,220
Article count: 2
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

90% percentile
025507510090.1% percentile
7.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles1.2K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 25.7%25.7%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Author 14.4%14.4%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 16.4%16.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 18.3%18.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 1.2%1.2%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Author 10.0%10.0%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Author 9.4%9.4%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Author 8.2%8.2%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Author 10.4%10.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 9.6%9.6%

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 16.4%, sitewide 26.9%Biased Writer Voice: Author 25.7%, sitewide 5.3%Negativity Bias: Author 17.1%, sitewide 19.2%Hasty Generalization: Author 18.3%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Emotion: Author 9.6%, sitewide 15.9%Pessimism Bias: Author 14.4%, sitewide 1.9%Confirmation Bias: Author 12.1%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Author 1.2%, sitewide 11.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 10.4%, sitewide 2.7%Straw Man: Author 10.0%, sitewide 0.9%Burden of Proof: Author 9.4%, sitewide 0.4%Availability Heuristic: Author 4.6%, sitewide 9.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 8.2%, sitewide 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 7.4%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Author 6.8%, sitewide 1.5%Halo Effect: Author 3.0%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Author 5.8%, sitewide 5.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 5.2%, sitewide 1.4%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 4.2%, sitewide 0.8%Anchoring Bias: Author 4.1%, sitewide 4.0%Indoctrination: Author 4.1%, sitewide 0.0%Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 3.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Author 3.5%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos