Author summary
53%3 analyzed articles/videos1,846 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Caroline Eggers results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Availability Heuristic, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 11.4% saturation with 868 hits. Analysis detected 6,262 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,584 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.3% and a BS Rank of 41% (3,694 of 6,194 authors). This Caroline Eggers is better (less manipulative) than 59.60% of the peer group.
Caroline Eggers
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
41%Caroline Eggers (selected)3%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 7,584
Article count: 3
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

40% percentile
025507510040.4% percentile
2.3% BS Score3 analyzed articles7.6K 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 5.2%5.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 4.0%4.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 11.4%11.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 3.3%3.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 3.1%3.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 4.1%4.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 5.3%5.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 3.0%3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Author 3.6%3.6%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Author 0.2%0.2%

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 5.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 11.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 3.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 5.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 4.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 3.1%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 5.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 5.3%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Author 2.2%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 3.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 3.6%, sitewide 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 3.4%, sitewide 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.4%, sitewide 3.3%Pessimism Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 1.9%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 3.0%, sitewide 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.5%Slippery Slope: Author 2.3%, sitewide 1.7%Bandwagon: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate