Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 2,463 analyzed words
BS Summary: These David Cox results contain 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority , Hasty Generalization , and Indoctrination , with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 13.7% saturation with 1,354 hits . Analysis detected 9,441 faulty-reasoning hits from 9,852 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.4% and a BS Rank of 67% (2,097 of 6,362 authors). This David Cox is worse (more manipulative) than 67.00% of the peer group. David Cox
Author details
Total words: 9,852
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
67% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 67.0% percentile 3.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles9.9K 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 1.8% 1.8% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.6% 1.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 1.3% 1.3% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 12.2% 12.2% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 13.7% 13.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.9% 1.9% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.9% 1.9% Ambiguity (Equivocation) Sitewide 0.8% Author 5.2% 5.2% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 12.3% 12.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 3.6% 3.6% 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 1.8%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.3%, sitewide 15.9% Optimism Bias: Author 13.7%, sitewide 6.0% Appeal to Authority: Author 13.2%, sitewide 11.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 12.3%, sitewide 8.1% Indoctrination: Author 12.2%, sitewide 0.0% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.9%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.6%, sitewide 7.5% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 6.8%, sitewide 3.3% Halo Effect: Author 1.9%, sitewide 6.7% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 3.4%, sitewide 5.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 5.2%, sitewide 0.8% Overconfidence Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 4.6% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 3.7% Appeal to Nature: Author 2.9%, sitewide 0.2% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 2.7%, sitewide 0.5% Recency Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst