Author summary
24% 1 analyzed article/video 456 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Justin Boggs results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Hasty Generalization , and Indoctrination , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 14.3% saturation with 195 hits . Analysis detected 885 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,368 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.9% and a BS Rank of 59% (2,603 of 6,204 authors). This Justin Boggs is worse (more manipulative) than 58.10% of the peer group. Justin Boggs
Author details
Total words: 1,368
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
58% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 58.1% percentile 2.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.4K 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 2.2% 2.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.1% 1.1% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 3.4% 3.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 14.3% 14.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 9.1% 9.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.4% 2.4% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.4% 1.4% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.5% 1.5% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 4.0% 4.0% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.7% 1.7% 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 2.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 9.1%, sitewide 15.9% Halo Effect: Author 14.3%, sitewide 6.7% Appeal to Authority: Author 3.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.4%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 5.5%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 7.5% Optimism Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 1.7%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.6% Indoctrination: Author 4.0%, sitewide 0.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 3.2%, sitewide 3.3% Composition/Division: Author 3.0%, sitewide 0.2% Recency Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% False Dilemma: Author 2.6%, sitewide 1.5% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.7%, sitewide 1.9% No True Scotsman: Author 1.5%, sitewide 0.1% Unattributed Quote: Author 1.0%, sitewide 1.1% Quote-first Misdirection: Author 1.0%, sitewide 0.0% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 0.9%, sitewide 0.8% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst