Author summary
89%1 analyzed article/video1,154 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Christopher Spata results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and False Dilemma, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 7.6% saturation with 525 hits. Analysis detected 6,069 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,921 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.4% and a BS Rank of 46% (3,559 of 6,498 authors). This Christopher Spata is better (less manipulative) than 54.80% of the peer group.
Christopher Spata
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
46%Christopher Spata (selected)3%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 6,921
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

45% percentile
025507510045.2% percentile
2.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles6.9K 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 6.6%6.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 5.5%5.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 4.0%4.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 1.3%1.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 5.5%5.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 4.0%4.0%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Author 5.5%5.5%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Author 4.3%4.3%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 7.6%7.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%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 6.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 5.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 5.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 6.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 4.0%, sitewide 8.1%Anchoring Bias: Author 7.6%, sitewide 4.0%Confirmation Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Author 4.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 4.7%, sitewide 6.0%False Dilemma: Author 5.5%, sitewide 1.5%Biased Writer Voice: Author 5.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 4.0%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 4.3%, sitewide 0.5%Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.5%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 2.4%, sitewide 1.9%Bandwagon: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos