Author summary
36% 2 analyzed articles/videos 876 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Natalie Weber results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias , Self-Serving Bias , and Negativity Bias , with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 8.4% saturation with 222 hits . Analysis detected 1,524 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,628 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.3% and a BS Rank of 42% (3,725 of 6,360 authors). This Natalie Weber is better (less manipulative) than 58.60% of the peer group. Natalie Weber
Author details
Total words: 2,628
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
41% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 41.4% percentile 2.3% BS Score2 analyzed articles2.6K 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 3.1% 3.1% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 4.6% 4.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 2.8% 2.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.0% 2.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.4% 1.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.1% 1.1% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.9% 2.9% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.8% 0.8% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 3.0% 3.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 8.4% 8.4% 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 3.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 4.6%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 2.8%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 8.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 7.5% Overconfidence Bias: Author 6.9%, sitewide 4.6% Halo Effect: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 6.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 5.3%, sitewide 3.7% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.3% Status Quo Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 2.2% Recency Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.8% Pessimism Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 1.9% Bandwagon: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Red Herring: Author 1.8%, sitewide 0.7% Begging the Question: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 1.3%, sitewide 1.5% Hindsight Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 1.4% Primacy Effect: Author 0.4%, sitewide 0.9% Burden of Proof: Author 0.5%, sitewide 0.4% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst