Author summary
66% 3 analyzed articles/videos 1,627 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Burgess Everett results contain 41 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Biased Writer Voice , and Appeal to Authority , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 11% saturation with 609 hits . Analysis detected 6,185 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,551 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.7% and a BS Rank of 53% (3,006 of 6,358 authors). This Burgess Everett is worse (more manipulative) than 52.70% of the peer group. Burgess Everett
Author details
Total words: 5,551
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
53% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 52.7% percentile 2.7% BS Score3 analyzed articles5.6K 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 8.7% 8.7% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 5.6% 5.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.1% 2.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 11.0% 11.0% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 2.1% 2.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.7% 1.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 4.3% 4.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 3.0% 3.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 7.5% 7.5% Quote-first Misdirection Sitewide 0.0% Author 3.2% 3.2% 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 8.7%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 5.6%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 11.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 7.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 4.3%, sitewide 8.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 8.0%, sitewide 5.3% Confirmation Bias: Author 5.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 3.0%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.5%, sitewide 5.2% Self-Serving Bias: Author 4.6%, sitewide 3.7% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.0%, sitewide 3.3% Recency Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 2.7% Quote-first Misdirection: Author 3.2%, sitewide 0.0% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.8%, sitewide 1.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.5%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.5% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.3%, sitewide 0.8% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.0% Bandwagon: Author 1.9%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst