Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 799 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nathan Halverson results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Appeal to Emotion , and Framing Effect , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 14.8% saturation with 474 hits . Analysis detected 2,682 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,196 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.1% and a BS Rank of 62% (2,447 of 6,348 authors). This Nathan Halverson is worse (more manipulative) than 61.50% of the peer group. Nathan Halverson
Author details
Total words: 3,196
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
62% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 61.5% percentile 3.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.2K 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 8.5% 8.5% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 1.9% 1.9% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.8% 0.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.0% 3.0% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 9.9% 9.9% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 11.0% 11.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.1% 1.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.5% 0.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 14.8% 14.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 6.8% 6.8% 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 8.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 14.8%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 9.9%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 6.8%, sitewide 11.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 11.0%, sitewide 5.3% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 1.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 5.1%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.0%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.2%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.9%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.7% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 2.0% Pessimism Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 1.9% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.3%, sitewide 1.9% Slippery Slope: Author 1.6%, sitewide 1.7% Begging the Question: Author 0.8%, sitewide 1.7% Indoctrination: Author 1.4%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst