Author summary
0% 2 analyzed articles/videos 2,266 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Elisabeth Garber-Paul results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Appeal to Authority , and Confirmation Bias , with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 1,111 hits . Analysis detected 7,825 faulty-reasoning hits from 11,252 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 17% (5,325 of 6,360 authors). This Elisabeth Garber-Paul is better (less manipulative) than 83.70% of the peer group. Elisabeth Garber-Paul
Author details
Total words: 11,252
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
16% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 16.3% percentile 1.6% BS Score2 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 1.2% 1.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 5.1% 5.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 2.0% 2.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 4.3% 4.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.3% 3.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.5% 2.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 2.7% 2.7% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 2.1% 2.1% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 3.7% 3.7% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.4% 0.4% 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 1.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 5.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 2.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 4.3%, sitewide 11.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 9.9%, sitewide 8.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.3%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 2.5%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 2.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 2.6%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.1%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.9%, sitewide 3.3% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.8%, sitewide 0.8% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst