Author summary
72% 2 analyzed articles/videos 870 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Amber Lee results contain 26 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Appeal to Emotion , and Biased Writer Voice , with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 10.9% saturation with 284 hits . Analysis detected 2,285 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,610 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.4% and a BS Rank of 66% (2,126 of 6,226 authors). This Amber Lee is worse (more manipulative) than 65.90% of the peer group. Amber Lee
Author details
Total words: 2,610
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
66% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 65.9% percentile 3.4% BS Score2 analyzed articles2.6K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 8.9% 8.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 6.1% 6.1% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 0.3% 0.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.7% 1.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 8.8% 8.8% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 0.7% 0.7% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 10.9% 10.9% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 8.7% 8.7% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 1.6% 1.6% Pessimism Bias Sitewide 1.9% Author 4.8% 4.8% 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 8.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 6.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 8.8%, sitewide 15.9% Optimism Bias: Author 10.9%, sitewide 6.0% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.7%, sitewide 9.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 8.7%, sitewide 5.3% Hasty Generalization: Author 0.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 6.4%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 5.7%, sitewide 6.7% Anecdotal: Author 2.4%, sitewide 5.2% Pessimism Bias: Author 4.8%, sitewide 1.9% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 4.6% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 3.7% Loss Aversion: Author 3.6%, sitewide 2.5% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.6%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 2.7%, sitewide 0.5% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.3%, sitewide 0.8% Bandwagon: Author 1.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 2.2% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.2%, sitewide 1.1% Begging the Question: Author 0.5%, sitewide 1.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst