Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 860 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dan Kraker results contain 34 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority , Confirmation Bias , and Appeal to Emotion , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 16.7% saturation with 430 hits . Analysis detected 4,029 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,569 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.6% and a BS Rank of 81% (1,235 of 6,244 authors). This Dan Kraker is worse (more manipulative) than 80.20% of the peer group. Dan Kraker
Author details
Total words: 2,569
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
80% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 80.2% percentile 4.6% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.6K 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% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 8.3% 8.3% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 16.7% 16.7% Loss Aversion Sitewide 2.5% Author 10.9% 10.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 14.8% 14.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 1.1% 1.1% Pessimism Bias Sitewide 1.9% Author 8.8% 8.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.3% 2.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 11.1% 11.1% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 14.9% 14.9% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.9% 2.9% 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 16.7%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 8.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 11.1%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 14.9%, sitewide 11.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 14.8%, sitewide 7.5% Loss Aversion: Author 10.9%, sitewide 2.5% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.3%, sitewide 9.1% Pessimism Bias: Author 8.8%, sitewide 1.9% Hasty Generalization: Author 1.1%, sitewide 8.1% In-Group Bias: Author 7.9%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 2.9%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 5.9%, sitewide 6.0% Overconfidence Bias: Author 3.3%, sitewide 4.6% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 4.4%, sitewide 3.1% Status Quo Bias: Author 4.4%, sitewide 2.2% Begging the Question: Author 4.4%, sitewide 1.7% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 4.2%, sitewide 2.7% Anchoring Bias: Author 3.4%, sitewide 4.0% Ad Hominem: Author 3.9%, sitewide 2.2% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 3.7% Slippery Slope: Author 3.4%, sitewide 1.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.8%, sitewide 3.3% Bandwagon: Author 3.0%, sitewide 2.2% Recency Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst