Author summary
93% 1 analyzed article/video 1,326 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Elizabeth Mateer Ph.D. results contain 37 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority , Ambiguity (Equivocation) , and Biased Writer Voice , with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 1,742 hits . Analysis detected 8,426 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,630 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.4% and a BS Rank of 68% (2,160 of 6,628 authors). This Elizabeth Mateer Ph.D. is worse (more manipulative) than 67.40% of the peer group. Elizabeth Mateer Ph.D.
Author details
Total words: 6,630
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
67% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 67.4% percentile 3.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles6.6K 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 4.8% 4.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 26.3% 26.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 3.5% 3.5% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Ambiguity (Equivocation) Sitewide 0.8% Author 9.3% 9.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.9% 1.9% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.3% 0.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.3% 0.3% Post Hoc (False Cause) Sitewide 3.3% Author 8.6% 8.6% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 5.1% 5.1% 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 4.8%, sitewide 26.9% Hasty Generalization: Author 26.3%, sitewide 8.1% Negativity Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 13.3%, sitewide 11.1% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 9.3%, sitewide 0.8% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.9%, sitewide 9.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 9.0%, sitewide 5.3% Overconfidence Bias: Author 8.8%, sitewide 4.6% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 8.6%, sitewide 3.3% Anecdotal: Author 8.0%, sitewide 5.2% Confirmation Bias: Author 6.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 4.3%, sitewide 6.0% Indoctrination: Author 5.1%, sitewide 0.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 3.7% Composition/Division: Author 2.8%, sitewide 0.2% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.5% False Dilemma: Author 2.4%, sitewide 1.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst