Author summary
0% 3 analyzed articles/videos 5,222 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Meg James results contain 42 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority , Framing Effect , and Negativity Bias , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 25% saturation with 3,794 hits . Analysis detected 19,083 faulty-reasoning hits from 15,178 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of 60% (2,660 of 6,628 authors). This Meg James is worse (more manipulative) than 59.90% of the peer group. Meg James
Author details
Total words: 15,178
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
60% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 59.9% percentile 3.0% BS Score3 analyzed articles15.2K 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% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 25.0% 25.0% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 13.1% 13.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 4.3% 4.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 10.8% 10.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.2% 2.2% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 0.8% 0.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.4% 2.4% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 2.4% 2.4% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.1% 1.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 2.0% 2.0% 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 13.1%, sitewide 26.9% Halo Effect: Author 25.0%, sitewide 6.7% Negativity Bias: Author 10.8%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.3%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 14.6%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.2%, sitewide 9.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 8.2%, sitewide 5.3% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.4%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 1.1%, sitewide 5.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 5.2%, sitewide 3.3% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 3.7% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 3.1% Hindsight Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 1.4% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 2.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.5%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 2.2%, sitewide 2.0% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst