Author summary
â 56% 1 analyzed article/video 553 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nicholas Ivor Martin results contain 29 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization , False Dilemma , and Anecdotal , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 220 hits . Analysis detected 1,904 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,212 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of â 59% (2,607 of 6,364 authors). This Nicholas Ivor Martin is worse (more manipulative) than 59.00% of the peer group. Nicholas Ivor Martin
Author details
Total words: 2,212
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
59% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 59.0% percentile 3.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.2K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0â50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 1.7% 1.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 5.4% 5.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 9.9% 9.9% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.0% 2.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 0.2% 0.2% False Dilemma Sitewide 1.5% Author 7.3% 7.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.1% 1.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 4.3% 4.3% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 3.6% 3.6% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 3.2% 3.2% 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 1.7%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 9.9%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 5.4%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.0%, sitewide 11.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 9.8%, sitewide 8.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 4.3%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 7.5% False Dilemma: Author 7.3%, sitewide 1.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 5.4%, sitewide 5.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 4.3%, sitewide 5.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 5.1%, sitewide 2.7% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 3.7% Indoctrination: Author 3.6%, sitewide 0.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.4%, sitewide 3.3% Recency Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Burden of Proof: Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.4% Pessimism Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 1.9% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.2%, sitewide 0.8% Straw Man: Author 2.1%, sitewide 0.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.7% Tu Quoque: Author 1.6%, sitewide 0.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst