Author summary
⁠64%1 analyzed article/video1,362 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Lilia Luciano results contain 26 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 9.6% saturation with 391 hits. Analysis detected 2,889 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,086 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠53% (3,006 of 6,373 authors). This Lilia Luciano is worse (more manipulative) than 52.80% of the peer group.
Lilia Luciano
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠53%Lilia Luciano (selected)3%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 4,086
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

53% percentile
025507510052.8% percentile
2.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.1K 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 9.0%9.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 4.5%4.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 4.4%4.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 9.6%9.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 2.7%2.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 0.8%0.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 2.5%2.5%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Author 5.1%5.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 5.5%5.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 3.5%3.5%

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 9.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 4.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 9.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 4.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 5.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 2.7%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 2.0%, sitewide 5.2%Unattributed Quote: Author 5.1%, sitewide 1.1%Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 2.7%Indoctrination: Author 2.6%, sitewide 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection: Author 2.6%, sitewide 0.0%Status Quo Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.1%, sitewide 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Author 0.5%, sitewide 1.5%Burden of Proof: Author 1.3%, sitewide 0.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos