Author summary
0%5 analyzed articles/videos787 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Emily Kwong results contain 29 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 17.3% saturation with 452 hits. Analysis detected 3,108 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,614 analyzed words across 5 articles, generating a BS Score of 4.1% and a BS Rank of 76% (1,543 of 6,359 authors). This Emily Kwong is worse (more manipulative) than 75.70% of the peer group.
Emily Kwong
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
76%Emily Kwong (selected)5%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 2,614
Article count: 5
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

76% percentile
025507510075.7% percentile
4.1% BS Score5 analyzed articles2.6K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 2.6%2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Author 13.7%13.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 7.2%7.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 17.3%17.3%Appeal to NatureSitewide 0.2%Author 5.4%5.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Author 0.7%0.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 3.3%3.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 5.5%5.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Author 4.3%4.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 3.4%3.4%

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 17.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 7.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 2.6%, sitewide 15.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 13.7%, sitewide 0.5%Appeal to Authority: Author 7.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 5.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 6.2%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Author 3.3%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 3.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 6.7%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Nature: Author 5.4%, sitewide 0.2%Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Author 5.2%, sitewide 4.0%Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.8%, sitewide 4.6%Recency Bias: Author 4.6%, sitewide 2.7%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 4.5%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 4.3%, sitewide 0.8%Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.9%, sitewide 3.3%Bandwagon: Author 2.6%, sitewide 2.2%Loss Aversion: Author 2.1%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 2.2%Indoctrination: Author 2.0%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate