Author summary
0% 2 analyzed articles/videos
BS Summary: These David Imel results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization , Anecdotal , and Framing Effect , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 11.1% saturation with 682 hits . Analysis detected 5,931 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,123 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 6,498 authors). This David Imel is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group. David Imel
Author details
Total words: 6,123
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
0% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 0.0% percentile 0.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles6.1K 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 5.7% 5.7% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 5.1% 5.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 3.8% 3.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 4.3% 4.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.9% 0.9% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 11.1% 11.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.5% 3.5% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.6% 2.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 3.3% 3.3% Self-Serving Bias Sitewide 3.7% Author 0.6% 0.6% 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 5.7%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 5.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 3.8%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 11.1%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Authority: Author 4.3%, sitewide 11.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 9.9%, sitewide 8.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.5%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 3.3%, sitewide 6.7% Anecdotal: Author 6.3%, sitewide 5.2% Optimism Bias: Author 3.1%, sitewide 6.0% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 4.6% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.4%, sitewide 3.3% Anchoring Bias: Author 2.6%, sitewide 4.0% Hindsight Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 1.4% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 3.7% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 3.4%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 2.9%, sitewide 1.9% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 2.5%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% False Dilemma: Author 2.2%, sitewide 1.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst