Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 3,295 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Lindsay Chervinsky results contain 34 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Overconfidence Bias , and Post Hoc (False Cause) , with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 14.6% saturation with 1,922 hits . Analysis detected 5,751 faulty-reasoning hits from 13,180 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.3% and a BS Rank of 6% (6,229 of 6,628 authors). This Lindsay Chervinsky is better (less manipulative) than 94.00% of the peer group. Lindsay Chervinsky
Author details
Total words: 13,180
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
6% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 6.0% percentile 1.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles13.2K 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 3.0% 3.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.1% 1.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 0.4% 0.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 0.9% 0.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.3% 2.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.1% 0.1% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 14.6% 14.6% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.6% 1.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.3% 1.3% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.1% 1.1% 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 3.0%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 0.4%, sitewide 15.9% Hasty Generalization: Author 14.6%, sitewide 8.1% Appeal to Authority: Author 0.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.3%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 1.2%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.4%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 1.9% Slippery Slope: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.7% Begging the Question: Author 0.8%, sitewide 1.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst