Author summary
0% 3 analyzed articles/videos 2,022 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Diana Stancy results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , In-Group Bias , and Appeal to Emotion , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 64.8% saturation with 3,127 hits . Analysis detected 10,531 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,823 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 6.8% and a BS Rank of 90% (669 of 6,628 authors). This Diana Stancy is worse (more manipulative) than 89.90% of the peer group. Diana Stancy
Author details
Total words: 4,823
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
90% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 89.9% percentile 6.8% BS Score3 analyzed articles4.8K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–75%
0.0% 20% 40% 60% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 64.8% 64.8% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 16.3% 16.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias Sitewide 3.1% Author 12.2% 12.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 25.0% 25.0% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.6% 2.6% Self-Serving Bias Sitewide 3.7% Author 8.1% 8.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.8% 1.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 5.7% 5.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 14.4% 14.4% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.9% 0.9% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 20% 20% 40% 40% 60% 60% Framing Effect: Author 64.8%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 25.0%, sitewide 19.2% In-Group Bias: Author 16.3%, sitewide 6.9% Appeal to Emotion: Author 16.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 14.4%, sitewide 11.1% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 12.2%, sitewide 3.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 5.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.6%, sitewide 8.1% Self-Serving Bias: Author 8.1%, sitewide 3.7% Confirmation Bias: Author 6.9%, sitewide 7.5% Optimism Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 6.0% Overconfidence Bias: Author 4.7%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 4.0% Slippery Slope: Author 3.9%, sitewide 1.7% Begging the Question: Author 3.6%, sitewide 1.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.6%, sitewide 3.3% Ad Hominem: Author 3.3%, sitewide 2.2% Red Herring: Author 3.1%, sitewide 0.7% Genetic Fallacy: Author 3.0%, sitewide 1.4% Status Quo Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 2.2% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 2.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 2.7% 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