Author summary
67%1 analyzed article/video386 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Elizabeth Mitchell results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 10.4% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 1,723 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,544 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.5% and a BS Rank of 79% (1,313 of 6,244 authors). This Elizabeth Mitchell is worse (more manipulative) than 79.00% of the peer group.
Elizabeth Mitchell
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
79%Elizabeth Mitchell (selected)5%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 1,544
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

79% percentile
025507510079.0% percentile
4.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.5K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 6.9%6.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 8.9%8.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 4.3%4.3%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Author 6.0%6.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 10.4%10.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 2.2%2.2%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 8.7%8.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Author 7.3%7.3%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Author 6.9%6.9%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Author 4.5%4.5%

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 6.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 8.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 10.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 4.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 8.1%, sitewide 9.1%Overconfidence Bias: Author 8.7%, sitewide 4.6%Hasty Generalization: Author 5.7%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 2.2%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 7.3%, sitewide 3.3%Self-Serving Bias: Author 6.9%, sitewide 3.7%In-Group Bias: Author 4.5%, sitewide 6.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Author 6.0%, sitewide 0.0%Optimism Bias: Author 3.6%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 2.8%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 2.7%, sitewide 5.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 4.5%, sitewide 1.4%Straw Man: Author 4.0%, sitewide 0.9%Ad Hominem: Author 3.2%, sitewide 2.2%Recency Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 2.7%Red Herring: Author 2.1%, sitewide 0.7%Pessimism Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 1.9%Unattributed Quote: Author 1.5%, sitewide 1.1%Primacy Effect: Author 1.4%, sitewide 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 0.7%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos