Author summary
⁠29%2 analyzed articles/videos204 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Christina Burkhart results contain 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 9.7% saturation with 129 hits. Analysis detected 623 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,335 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (2,265 of 6,628 authors). This Christina Burkhart is worse (more manipulative) than 65.80% of the peer group.
Christina Burkhart
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Jacob Owens1%
⁠1%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠66%Christina Burkhart (selected)4%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 1,335
Article count: 2
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

66% percentile
025507510065.8% percentile
3.3% BS Score2 analyzed articles1.3K 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 1.1%1.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 9.5%9.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 2.9%2.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 6.1%6.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Author 5.2%5.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 1.5%1.5%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 0.9%0.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 9.7%9.7%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Author 3.3%3.3%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 1.6%1.6%

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 1.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 9.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Author 6.1%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Author 9.7%, sitewide 6.0%Availability Heuristic: Author 2.9%, sitewide 9.1%Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.5%, sitewide 5.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 5.2%, sitewide 0.8%Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 4.0%Indoctrination: Author 3.3%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.5%Middle Ground: Author 0.6%, sitewide 0.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos