Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 367 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Isabel van Brugen results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Ad Hominem , and Framing Effect , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.6% saturation with 185 hits . Analysis detected 1,685 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,468 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.8% and a BS Rank of 82% (1,173 of 6,359 authors). This Isabel van Brugen is worse (more manipulative) than 81.60% of the peer group. Isabel van Brugen
Author details
Total words: 1,468
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
82% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 81.6% percentile 4.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.5K 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 8.0% 8.0% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 7.0% 7.0% Unattributed Quote Sitewide 1.1% Author 8.0% 8.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 12.6% 12.6% Ad Hominem Sitewide 2.2% Author 8.8% 8.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.8% 2.8% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 10.2% 10.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 7.6% 7.6% Quote-first Misdirection Sitewide 0.0% Author 3.3% 3.3% Status Quo Bias Sitewide 2.2% Author 5.1% 5.1% 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 8.0%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 12.6%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 7.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 7.6%, sitewide 11.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 10.2%, sitewide 5.3% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.8%, sitewide 9.1% Ad Hominem: Author 8.8%, sitewide 2.2% Unattributed Quote: Author 8.0%, sitewide 1.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 6.8%, sitewide 7.5% Anecdotal: Author 4.3%, sitewide 5.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 5.1%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 4.6%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 4.2%, sitewide 1.9% Anchoring Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 4.0% Begging the Question: Author 4.0%, sitewide 1.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.4%, sitewide 3.3% Quote-first Misdirection: Author 3.3%, sitewide 0.0% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.7% Indoctrination: Author 2.7%, sitewide 0.0% Recency Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 2.7% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.5%, sitewide 0.8% Pessimism Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 1.9% Appeal to Nature: Author 1.2%, sitewide 0.2% Horn Effect: Author 0.5%, sitewide 1.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst