Author summary
39% 8 analyzed articles/videos 4,099 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chandelis Duster results contain 48 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Appeal to Authority , and Framing Effect , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 8.6% saturation with 1,947 hits . Analysis detected 15,864 faulty-reasoning hits from 22,761 analyzed words across 8 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of 11% (5,520 of 6,189 authors). This Chandelis Duster is better (less manipulative) than 89.20% of the peer group. Chandelis Duster
Author details
Total words: 22,761
Article count: 8
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
11% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 10.8% percentile 1.5% BS Score8 analyzed articles22.8K 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 4.2% 4.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 8.6% 8.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.1% 6.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.3% 2.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.6% 1.6% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 5.3% 5.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.1% 1.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.8% 1.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.6% 3.6% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 1.4% 1.4% 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 4.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 8.6%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.1%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 5.3%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.3%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.4%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 1.7%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 4.0% Ad Hominem: Author 3.8%, sitewide 2.2% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.4%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 2.0% Recency Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst