Author summary
⁠0%3 analyzed articles/videos1,060 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel Matthews results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.5% saturation with 1,112 hits. Analysis detected 8,522 faulty-reasoning hits from 8,264 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (3,296 of 6,498 authors). This Daniel Matthews is better (less manipulative) than 50.70% of the peer group.
Daniel Matthews
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠50%Daniel Matthews (selected)3%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 8,264
Article count: 3
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

49% percentile
025507510049.3% percentile
2.6% BS Score3 analyzed articles8.3K 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 7.8%7.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 7.8%7.8%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 13.3%13.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 3.7%3.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 0.9%0.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 13.5%13.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 4.0%4.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 3.0%3.0%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Author 5.1%5.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 0.8%0.8%

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 7.8%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 13.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 7.8%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Author 13.3%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Author 3.7%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 4.0%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 4.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 4.6%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 2.9%, sitewide 6.0%Self-Serving Bias: Author 5.3%, sitewide 3.7%Anecdotal: Author 1.9%, sitewide 5.2%Unattributed Quote: Author 5.1%, sitewide 1.1%Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.0%Hindsight Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.4%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.2%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.5%, sitewide 0.8%Loss Aversion: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Author 2.0%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos