Author summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos1,132 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Julia Jester results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 17.5% saturation with 657 hits. Analysis detected 4,797 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,761 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (2,210 of 6,134 authors). This Julia Jester is worse (more manipulative) than 64.00% of the peer group.
Julia Jester
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠64%Julia Jester (selected)4%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 3,761
Article count: 2
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

64% percentile
025507510064.0% percentile
3.3% BS Score2 analyzed articles3.8K 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 6.0%6.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 17.5%17.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 10.1%10.1%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Author 8.2%8.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 2.8%2.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 0.7%0.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 0.7%0.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 9.6%9.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 0.8%0.8%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Author 1.6%1.6%

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 17.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 10.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 10.9%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Author 9.6%, sitewide 5.3%Hasty Generalization: Author 9.2%, sitewide 8.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 2.8%, sitewide 9.1%Pessimism Bias: Author 8.2%, sitewide 1.9%Confirmation Bias: Author 4.7%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 0.7%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Author 1.6%, sitewide 5.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 5.0%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Author 4.7%, sitewide 2.7%Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 3.7%Slippery Slope: Author 3.2%, sitewide 1.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 3.1%Unattributed Quote: Author 3.0%, sitewide 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 2.2%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.5%, sitewide 0.8%Ad Hominem: Author 2.4%, sitewide 2.2%Burden of Proof: Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos