Author summary
87% 1 analyzed article/video 862 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Hannah Pingree results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias , Anecdotal , and Appeal to Emotion , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 16.5% saturation with 570 hits . Analysis detected 2,706 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,448 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.1% and a BS Rank of 71% (2,607 of 8,985 authors). This Hannah Pingree is worse (more manipulative) than 71.00% of the peer group. Hannah Pingree
Author details
Total words: 3,448
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
71% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 71.0% percentile 3.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.4K 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 4.4% 4.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 4.7% 4.7% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 16.5% 16.5% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 5.0% 5.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.6% 2.6% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.6% 1.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 4.1% 4.1% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.6% 3.6% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 3.3% 3.3% 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 4.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 4.7%, sitewide 19.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 16.5%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Emotion: Author 5.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.6%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 4.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.6%, sitewide 8.1% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 6.7%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 6.1%, sitewide 5.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.6%, sitewide 3.3% Indoctrination: Author 3.3%, sitewide 0.0% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% False Dilemma: Author 2.5%, sitewide 1.5% Loss Aversion: Author 1.9%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 1.7%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst