Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Naomi LaChance results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Indoctrination , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 6.9% saturation with 262 hits . Analysis detected 2,728 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,796 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 6,629 authors). This Naomi LaChance is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group. Naomi LaChance
Author details
Total words: 3,796
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
0% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 0.0% percentile 0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.8K 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 5.6% 5.6% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 6.3% 6.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.9% 6.9% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.2% 2.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.2% 2.2% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.9% 0.9% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.6% 0.6% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.5% 1.5% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 5.2% 5.2% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.4% 3.4% 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 5.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 6.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.9%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.2%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.2%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.4%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.4%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.9%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.0%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 2.3%, sitewide 5.2% Indoctrination: Author 5.2%, sitewide 0.0% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 4.0% False Dilemma: Author 3.8%, sitewide 1.5% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.7%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.1% Quote-first Misdirection: Author 2.9%, sitewide 0.0% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: 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