Author summary
0% 2 analyzed articles/videos 2,088 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel Chang results contain 42 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Appeal to Authority , and Framing Effect , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 5.3% saturation with 725 hits . Analysis detected 6,984 faulty-reasoning hits from 13,752 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.2% and a BS Rank of 5% (6,192 of 6,462 authors). This Daniel Chang is better (less manipulative) than 95.80% of the peer group. Daniel Chang
Author details
Total words: 13,752
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
4% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 4.2% percentile 1.2% BS Score2 analyzed articles13.8K 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 4.8% 4.8% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 5.3% 5.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 5.0% 5.0% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.7% 1.7% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.2% 0.2% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.2% 0.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 5.0% 5.0% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.3% 0.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.2% 2.2% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 0.7% 0.7% 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 4.8%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 5.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 5.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 5.0%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 4.2%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.2%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.2%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.7%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 1.8%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 3.4%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.2%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.5%, sitewide 2.5% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.5%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst