Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 330 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Elizabeth Shockman results contain 18 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias , Appeal to Emotion , and In-Group Bias , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 82% saturation with 812 hits . Analysis detected 2,576 faulty-reasoning hits from 990 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 14.5% and a BS Rank of 98% (179 of 6,628 authors). This Elizabeth Shockman is worse (more manipulative) than 97.30% of the peer group. Elizabeth Shockman
Author details
Total words: 990
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
97% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 97.3% percentile 14.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles990 analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–100%
0.0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 82.0% 82.0% Self-Serving Bias Sitewide 3.7% Author 27.3% 27.3% Loss Aversion Sitewide 2.5% Author 21.7% 21.7% Bandwagon Sitewide 2.2% Author 17.8% 17.8% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 22.0% 22.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 5.9% 5.9% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 27.0% 27.0% Status Quo Bias Sitewide 2.2% Author 11.7% 11.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.3% 2.3% Pessimism Bias Sitewide 1.9% Author 9.8% 9.8% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 20% 20% 40% 40% 60% 60% 80% 80% 100% 100% Framing Effect: Author 82.0%, sitewide 26.9% Self-Serving Bias: Author 27.3%, sitewide 3.7% Appeal to Emotion: Author 27.0%, sitewide 15.9% In-Group Bias: Author 22.0%, sitewide 6.9% Loss Aversion: Author 21.7%, sitewide 2.5% Negativity Bias: Author 5.9%, sitewide 19.2% Bandwagon: Author 17.8%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 11.7%, sitewide 2.2% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.3%, sitewide 11.1% Pessimism Bias: Author 9.8%, sitewide 1.9% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 8.6%, sitewide 0.8% Halo Effect: Author 2.2%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 3.1%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.9%, sitewide 5.2% False Dilemma: Author 4.8%, sitewide 1.5% Overconfidence Bias: Author 4.8%, sitewide 4.6% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 3.2%, sitewide 2.7% Burden of Proof: Author 2.9%, sitewide 0.4% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst