Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 3,489 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Christina Shaw results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , In-Group Bias , and Hasty Generalization , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 25.7% saturation with 1,796 hits . Analysis detected 11,437 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,978 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 6.1% and a BS Rank of 88% (819 of 6,630 authors). This Christina Shaw is worse (more manipulative) than 87.70% of the peer group. Christina Shaw
Author details
Total words: 6,978
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
88% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 87.7% percentile 6.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles7K 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 12.3% 12.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias Sitewide 3.1% Author 14.2% 14.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 0.3% 0.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 17.6% 17.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 25.7% 25.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 15.0% 15.0% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.2% 1.2% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 0.5% 0.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 22.8% 22.8% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% 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 12.3%, sitewide 26.9% Appeal to Emotion: Author 25.7%, sitewide 15.9% Negativity Bias: Author 22.8%, sitewide 19.2% In-Group Bias: Author 17.6%, sitewide 6.9% Hasty Generalization: Author 15.0%, sitewide 8.1% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 14.2%, sitewide 3.1% Appeal to Authority: Author 0.3%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 6.2%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 8.7%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 4.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 0.5%, sitewide 5.2% Ad Hominem: Author 5.2%, sitewide 2.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 5.0%, sitewide 3.3% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 4.6% Genetic Fallacy: Author 4.3%, sitewide 1.4% Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.3%, sitewide 3.7% Loss Aversion: Author 3.5%, sitewide 2.5% Pessimism Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 1.9% Hindsight Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 1.4% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Slippery Slope: Author 1.4%, sitewide 1.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst