Author summary
26%2 analyzed articles/videos1,095 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Neal St. Anthony results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Halo Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 9.1% saturation with 732 hits. Analysis detected 5,922 faulty-reasoning hits from 8,073 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.8% and a BS Rank of 25% (4,699 of 6,204 authors). This Neal St. Anthony is better (less manipulative) than 75.70% of the peer group.
Neal St. Anthony
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
25%Neal St. Anthony (selected)2%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 8,073
Article count: 2
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

24% percentile
025507510024.3% percentile
1.8% BS Score2 analyzed articles8.1K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 7.5%7.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 2.6%2.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 4.5%4.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 1.0%1.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 2.5%2.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 3.9%3.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 2.5%2.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 6.5%6.5%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 0.1%0.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 0.7%0.7%

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%Framing Effect: Author 7.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 2.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 6.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 3.9%, sitewide 9.1%Optimism Bias: Author 9.1%, sitewide 6.0%Hasty Generalization: Author 2.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 5.0%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.6%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 2.3%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.2%, sitewide 3.3%Anchoring Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Author 1.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos