Author summary
33% 1 analyzed article/video 634 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Lila Seidman results contain 23 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias , Negativity Bias , and Framing Effect , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 7.6% saturation with 144 hits . Analysis detected 958 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,902 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.2% and a BS Rank of 38% (4,144 of 6,628 authors). This Lila Seidman is better (less manipulative) than 62.50% of the peer group. Lila Seidman
Author details
Total words: 1,902
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
38% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 37.5% percentile 2.2% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.9K 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 4.2% 4.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 0.7% 0.7% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 5.7% 5.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.5% 2.5% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.0% 1.0% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.2% 2.2% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.7% 2.7% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.9% 1.9% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.1% 1.1% Self-Serving Bias Sitewide 3.7% Author 0.3% 0.3% 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 4.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 5.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 0.7%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.2%, sitewide 8.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 7.6%, sitewide 5.3% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 1.9%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 6.1%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 1.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 4.6% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.8%, sitewide 3.3% Status Quo Bias: Author 2.8%, sitewide 2.2% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 1.9% Appeal to Nature: Author 1.4%, sitewide 0.2% Hindsight Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.4% Indoctrination: Author 0.6%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst