Author summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,668 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Andrea Teagle results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Nature, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 18.8% saturation with 1,255 hits. Analysis detected 3,735 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,672 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠22% (5,009 of 6,359 authors). This Andrea Teagle is better (less manipulative) than 78.80% of the peer group.
Andrea Teagle
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠22%Andrea Teagle (selected)2%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 6,672
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

21% percentile
025507510021.2% percentile
1.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles6.7K 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 1.9%1.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 2.1%2.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 1.4%1.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 18.8%18.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 0.5%0.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 3.5%3.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 0.7%0.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 1.9%1.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 0.9%0.9%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Author 0.9%0.9%

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 1.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 19.2%Optimism Bias: Author 18.8%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 3.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 0.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 5.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Author 1.9%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.9%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 0.9%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.4%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Nature: Author 3.0%, sitewide 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Author 0.1%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Author 0.5%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos