Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 1,774 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Julia Ingram results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias , Ambiguity (Equivocation) , and Appeal to Authority , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.2% saturation with 867 hits . Analysis detected 6,314 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,096 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.5% and a BS Rank of 47% (3,529 of 6,628 authors). This Julia Ingram is better (less manipulative) than 53.20% of the peer group. Julia Ingram
Author details
Total words: 7,096
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
47% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 46.8% percentile 2.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles7.1K 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 4.0% 4.0% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 5.9% 5.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 12.2% 12.2% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.3% 0.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.8% 2.8% Ambiguity (Equivocation) Sitewide 0.8% Author 7.0% 7.0% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.7% 0.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.4% 3.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.4% 2.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 6.9% 6.9% 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 4.0%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 12.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 5.9%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 6.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.8%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.4%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 8.0%, sitewide 7.5% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 7.0%, sitewide 0.8% In-Group Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 2.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 5.6%, sitewide 5.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 2.1%, sitewide 5.3% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.8%, sitewide 3.3% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.6% Unattributed Quote: Author 4.2%, sitewide 1.1% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 3.7% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Pessimism Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 1.9% Recency Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 2.7% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Begging the Question: Author 2.1%, sitewide 1.7% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst