Author summary
0% 2 analyzed articles/videos 3,275 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Liam Proven results contain 33 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Appeal to Emotion , and Hasty Generalization , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 7.3% saturation with 957 hits . Analysis detected 6,811 faulty-reasoning hits from 13,100 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 16% (5,616 of 6,611 authors). This Liam Proven is better (less manipulative) than 84.90% of the peer group. Liam Proven
Author details
Total words: 13,100
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
15% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 15.1% percentile 1.6% BS Score2 analyzed articles13.1K 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 1.4% 1.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 2.2% 2.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 4.8% 4.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.5% 2.5% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.0% 2.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 0.6% 0.6% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.3% 0.3% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.9% 2.9% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.3% 1.3% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.2% 0.2% 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 1.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 2.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.8%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 7.3%, sitewide 6.7% In-Group Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 6.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 6.8%, sitewide 5.3% Optimism Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.7%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.7%, sitewide 3.3% Recency Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.7% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.5% Hindsight Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 1.4% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.4%, sitewide 0.8% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst