Author summary
76% 4 analyzed articles/videos 2,455 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Didi Tang results contain 42 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Biased Writer Voice , and Appeal to Authority , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12.1% saturation with 1,368 hits . Analysis detected 11,984 faulty-reasoning hits from 11,333 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.5% and a BS Rank of 48% (3,281 of 6,234 authors). This Didi Tang is better (less manipulative) than 52.60% of the peer group. Didi Tang
Author details
Total words: 11,333
Article count: 4
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
47% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 47.4% percentile 2.5% BS Score4 analyzed articles11.3K 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 12.1% 12.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 5.3% 5.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 11.5% 11.5% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.5% 2.5% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.6% 0.6% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 6.5% 6.5% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.2% 1.2% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 3.9% 3.9% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 4.7% 4.7% 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 12.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 11.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 5.3%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 6.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.5%, sitewide 9.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 8.3%, sitewide 5.3% Hasty Generalization: Author 4.7%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 5.6%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 1.2%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 4.6% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.3%, sitewide 3.3% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 4.0% Pessimism Bias: Author 3.9%, sitewide 1.9% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 3.7% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 3.1% Status Quo Bias: Author 2.9%, sitewide 2.2% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.2%, sitewide 0.8% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst