Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 298 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dhanika Pineda results contain 18 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Appeal to Emotion , and Hasty Generalization , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 35.6% saturation with 318 hits . Analysis detected 1,921 faulty-reasoning hits from 894 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 11.9% and a BS Rank of 97% (253 of 6,628 authors). This Dhanika Pineda is worse (more manipulative) than 96.20% of the peer group. Dhanika Pineda
Author details
Total words: 894
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
96% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 96.2% percentile 11.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles894 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% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 35.6% 35.6% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 22.6% 22.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 28.9% 28.9% Recency Bias Sitewide 2.7% Author 14.3% 14.3% Representativeness Heuris… Sitewide 1.9% Author 10.0% 10.0% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 11.4% 11.4% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 2.9% 2.9% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 10.0% 10.0% Ambiguity (Equivocation) Sitewide 0.8% Author 4.4% 4.4% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 29.9% 29.9% 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% Halo Effect: Author 35.6%, sitewide 6.7% Framing Effect: Author 29.9%, sitewide 26.9% Appeal to Emotion: Author 28.9%, sitewide 15.9% Hasty Generalization: Author 22.6%, sitewide 8.1% Recency Bias: Author 14.3%, sitewide 2.7% Overconfidence Bias: Author 11.4%, sitewide 4.6% Appeal to Authority: Author 9.2%, sitewide 11.1% Optimism Bias: Author 10.0%, sitewide 6.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 10.0%, sitewide 1.9% Availability Heuristic: Author 7.5%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 7.0%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 2.9%, sitewide 6.9% Anecdotal: Author 6.7%, sitewide 5.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 4.6%, sitewide 4.0% Bandwagon: Author 4.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 4.4%, sitewide 0.8% Self-Serving Bias: Author 4.0%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.4%, sitewide 3.3% Halo Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst