Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 1,442 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Miriam Frankel results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization , Framing Effect , and Optimism Bias , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 15.4% saturation with 665 hits . Analysis detected 4,538 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,326 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.8% and a BS Rank of 82% (1,206 of 6,628 authors). This Miriam Frankel is worse (more manipulative) than 81.80% of the peer group. Miriam Frankel
Author details
Total words: 4,326
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
82% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 81.8% percentile 4.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.3K 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 12.5% 12.5% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 15.4% 15.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.4% 6.4% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 9.4% 9.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.1% 1.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.4% 0.4% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 12.3% 12.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.1% 1.1% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 13.3% 13.3% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 7.4% 7.4% 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 12.5%, sitewide 26.9% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.4%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 15.4%, sitewide 5.3% Hasty Generalization: Author 13.3%, sitewide 8.1% Optimism Bias: Author 12.3%, sitewide 6.0% Appeal to Authority: Author 7.4%, sitewide 11.1% Indoctrination: Author 9.4%, sitewide 0.0% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.1%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 6.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.7% Anecdotal: Author 2.9%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 4.2%, sitewide 4.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 3.5%, sitewide 1.9% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.8%, sitewide 3.3% Bandwagon: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Begging the Question: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 1.0%, sitewide 1.5% Straw Man: Author 1.1%, sitewide 0.9% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 0.4%, sitewide 0.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst