Author summary
0% 3 analyzed articles/videos 1,327 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Marcus Medford-Kerr results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority , Negativity Bias , and Appeal to Emotion , with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 9.6% saturation with 1,020 hits . Analysis detected 7,959 faulty-reasoning hits from 10,663 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.9% and a BS Rank of 26% (4,950 of 6,628 authors). This Marcus Medford-Kerr is better (less manipulative) than 74.70% of the peer group. Marcus Medford-Kerr
Author details
Total words: 10,663
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
25% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 25.3% percentile 1.9% BS Score3 analyzed articles10.7K 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 3.9% 3.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 6.4% 6.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 4.4% 4.4% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.1% 0.1% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.6% 1.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.7% 3.7% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 0.6% 0.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.4% 2.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 4.0% 4.0% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 9.6% 9.6% 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 3.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 6.4%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.4%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 8.6%, sitewide 11.1% Optimism Bias: Author 9.6%, sitewide 6.0% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 4.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 2.4%, sitewide 6.7% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 3.6%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.9%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 3.1% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.9%, sitewide 1.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.5% Indoctrination: Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.0% Bandwagon: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst