Author summary
69% 36 analyzed articles/videos 11,098 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel Farr results contain 53 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Biased Writer Voice , and Appeal to Emotion , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.6% saturation with 10,130 hits . Analysis detected 63,070 faulty-reasoning hits from 57,662 analyzed words across 36 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of 33% (4,159 of 6,135 authors). This Daniel Farr is better (less manipulative) than 67.80% of the peer group. Daniel Farr
Author details
Total words: 57,662
Article count: 36
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
32% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 32.2% percentile 2.1% BS Score36 analyzed articles57.7K 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 12.8% 12.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 3.1% 3.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 8.4% 8.4% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 12.4% 12.4% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.3% 1.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.2% 2.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 4.7% 4.7% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.5% 0.5% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 4.0% 4.0% 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 12.8%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 17.6%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 8.4%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 12.4%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Authority: Author 3.1%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 4.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 4.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 2.2%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.0%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 4.0% Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 3.9%, sitewide 1.4% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.3%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.2%, sitewide 2.5% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.5%, sitewide 1.1% Bandwagon: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 2.2%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst