Author summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video627 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Kate Graham-Shaw results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 6.7% saturation with 168 hits. Analysis detected 1,222 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,508 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠38% (3,948 of 6,359 authors). This Kate Graham-Shaw is better (less manipulative) than 62.10% of the peer group.
Kate Graham-Shaw
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠38%Kate Graham-Shaw (selected)3%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 2,508
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

38% percentile
025507510037.9% percentile
2.2% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.5K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 1.5%1.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 3.5%3.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 1.7%1.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 3.7%3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Author 6.7%6.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 2.1%2.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 2.6%2.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 1.8%1.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 2.8%2.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 4.6%4.6%

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 1.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 3.7%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 2.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 4.6%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Author 2.6%, sitewide 6.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 6.7%, sitewide 0.5%Optimism Bias: Author 2.8%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.8%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.6%, sitewide 3.3%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 3.1%, sitewide 1.9%Loss Aversion: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.2%Bandwagon: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.2%, sitewide 0.8%False Dilemma: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.5%Horn Effect: Author 1.2%, sitewide 1.0%Appeal to Nature: Author 1.2%, sitewide 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Author 1.0%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos

Early bird⁠23%
Scientific American⁠0%By Kate Graham-Shaw⁠0%7/9/2026, 10:45:00 AM