Author summary
⁠22%5 analyzed articles/videos3,612 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Mohamed Ibrahim results contain 49 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 8.5% saturation with 1,436 hits. Analysis detected 12,079 faulty-reasoning hits from 16,862 analyzed words across 5 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠12% (5,565 of 6,261 authors). This Mohamed Ibrahim is better (less manipulative) than 88.90% of the peer group.
Mohamed Ibrahim
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠12%Mohamed Ibrahim (selected)2%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 16,862
Article count: 5
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

11% percentile
025507510011.1% percentile
1.5% BS Score5 analyzed articles16.9K 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 4.3%4.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 8.5%8.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 7.3%7.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 4.3%4.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 0.1%0.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 3.5%3.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 1.4%1.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 2.4%2.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 1.3%1.3%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 0.2%0.2%

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 4.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 8.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 7.3%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 4.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 3.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 4.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 0.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 3.6%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 2.6%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.8%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.8%Bandwagon: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos