Author summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,378 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Paul Mauro results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 6% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 1,772 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,382 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠19% (5,000 of 6,137 authors). This Paul Mauro is better (less manipulative) than 81.50% of the peer group.
Paul Mauro
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠19%Paul Mauro (selected)2%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 4,382
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

19% percentile
025507510018.5% percentile
1.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.4K 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 1.0%1.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 1.6%1.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 6.0%6.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 1.6%1.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 1.4%1.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 4.7%4.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 1.3%1.3%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Author 0.3%0.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 1.5%1.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 2.5%2.5%

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 1.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 4.7%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 1.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 1.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 2.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Author 0.3%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 3.7%, sitewide 3.3%Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 3.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 2.9%, sitewide 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.7%Unattributed Quote: Author 1.2%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.0%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos