Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 655 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Emma CHARLTON results contain 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Loss Aversion , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 14.3% saturation with 281 hits . Analysis detected 1,783 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,965 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.3% and a BS Rank of 79% (1,449 of 6,628 authors). This Emma CHARLTON is worse (more manipulative) than 78.10% of the peer group. Emma CHARLTON
Author details
Total words: 1,965
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
78% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 78.1% percentile 4.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles2K 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 12.9% 12.9% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.3% 6.3% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 14.3% 14.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 0.6% 0.6% Loss Aversion Sitewide 2.5% Author 8.6% 8.6% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 13.5% 13.5% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.5% 2.5% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.8% 2.8% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.9% 0.9% Self-Serving Bias Sitewide 3.7% Author 1.3% 1.3% 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 12.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 13.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.3%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 14.3%, sitewide 5.3% Loss Aversion: Author 8.6%, sitewide 2.5% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.5%, sitewide 8.1% Optimism Bias: Author 7.6%, sitewide 6.0% Confirmation Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 2.8%, sitewide 6.7% Anecdotal: Author 2.9%, sitewide 5.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 3.7% Pessimism Bias: Author 3.4%, sitewide 1.9% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 3.3%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.9%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 2.7% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.3%, sitewide 1.9% Quote-first Misdirection: Author 1.6%, sitewide 0.0% False Dilemma: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.5% Indoctrination: Author 0.6%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst