Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 853 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Doha Madani results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Appeal to Emotion , and Hindsight Bias , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.2% saturation with 826 hits . Analysis detected 3,697 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,412 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of 61% (2,548 of 6,377 authors). This Doha Madani is worse (more manipulative) than 60.10% of the peer group. Doha Madani
Author details
Total words: 3,412
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
60% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 60.1% percentile 3.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.4K 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 1.4% 1.4% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 20.6% 20.6% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.0% 2.0% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.9% 1.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 0.6% 0.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 10.0% 10.0% Hindsight Bias Sitewide 1.4% Author 6.7% 6.7% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.6% 1.6% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 24.2% 24.2% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.2% 1.2% 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 1.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 24.2%, sitewide 19.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 20.6%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Emotion: Author 10.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.0%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.9%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 4.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 4.1%, sitewide 6.7% Hindsight Bias: Author 6.7%, sitewide 1.4% Optimism Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 1.2%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.6% Self-Serving Bias: Author 4.3%, sitewide 3.7% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.9%, sitewide 3.3% Pessimism Bias: Author 3.3%, sitewide 1.9% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.0%, sitewide 0.8% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst