Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 1,000 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Natalie Escobar results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Hasty Generalization , and Bandwagon , with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 38% saturation with 1,139 hits . Analysis detected 3,540 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,000 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 5.4% and a BS Rank of 86% (987 of 6,607 authors). This Natalie Escobar is worse (more manipulative) than 85.10% of the peer group. Natalie Escobar
Author details
Total words: 3,000
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
85% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 85.1% percentile 5.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles3K 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% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 38.0% 38.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 4.2% 4.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 1.5% 1.5% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 12.9% 12.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.2% 2.2% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.6% 1.6% Bandwagon Sitewide 2.2% Author 7.1% 7.1% Representativeness Heuris… Sitewide 1.9% Author 6.6% 6.6% Post Hoc (False Cause) Sitewide 3.3% Author 7.0% 7.0% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.7% 1.7% 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% Appeal to Authority: Author 38.0%, sitewide 11.1% Framing Effect: Author 12.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 4.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.5%, sitewide 15.9% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.2%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 7.7%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 7.5% Bandwagon: Author 7.1%, sitewide 2.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 7.0%, sitewide 3.3% Halo Effect: Author 5.5%, sitewide 6.7% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 6.6%, sitewide 1.9% Anecdotal: Author 1.7%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 4.0%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 3.6%, sitewide 4.0% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 3.5%, sitewide 0.8% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 3.5%, sitewide 2.7% Genetic Fallacy: Author 2.4%, sitewide 1.4% Status Quo Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.2% False Dilemma: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.5% Hindsight Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.4% Primacy Effect: Author 0.9%, sitewide 0.9% Composition/Division: Author 0.5%, sitewide 0.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst