Author summary
0% 2 analyzed articles/videos 2,858 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Natalie Harmsen results contain 31 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect , Indoctrination , and In-Group Bias , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 6.3% saturation with 670 hits . Analysis detected 4,780 faulty-reasoning hits from 10,559 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of 12% (5,888 of 6,628 authors). This Natalie Harmsen is better (less manipulative) than 88.80% of the peer group. Natalie Harmsen
Author details
Total words: 10,559
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
11% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 11.2% percentile 1.5% BS Score2 analyzed articles10.6K 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 1.3% 1.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 0.7% 0.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 3.9% 3.9% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.4% 1.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 0.8% 0.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 1.3% 1.3% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 4.2% 4.2% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.8% 1.8% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.1% 1.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 4.1% 4.1% 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 1.3%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 3.9%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 0.8%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 1.3%, sitewide 8.1% In-Group Bias: Author 4.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 6.3%, sitewide 6.7% Biased Writer Voice: Author 6.3%, sitewide 5.3% Optimism Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 1.1%, sitewide 5.2% Indoctrination: Author 4.2%, sitewide 0.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.0%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Pessimism Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.7% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.6%, sitewide 0.8% False Dilemma: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.5% Hindsight Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.4% Unattributed Quote: Author 0.1%, sitewide 1.1% Primacy Effect: Author 0.5%, sitewide 0.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst