Author summary
0% 2 analyzed articles/videos 3,049 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Paul Pringle results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias , Framing Effect , and Appeal to Emotion , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.9% saturation with 2,641 hits . Analysis detected 13,256 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,784 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 4.9% and a BS Rank of 83% (1,170 of 6,628 authors). This Paul Pringle is worse (more manipulative) than 82.40% of the peer group. Paul Pringle
Author details
Total words: 7,784
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
82% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 82.4% percentile 4.9% BS Score2 analyzed articles7.8K 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% Self-Serving Bias Sitewide 3.7% Author 21.4% 21.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 33.9% 33.9% Hindsight Bias Sitewide 1.4% Author 10.9% 10.9% Special Pleading Sitewide 0.3% Author 7.8% 7.8% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 19.7% 19.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.4% 2.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.1% 2.1% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.9% 0.9% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 11.7% 11.7% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.4% 1.4% 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% Negativity Bias: Author 33.9%, sitewide 19.2% Framing Effect: Author 19.7%, sitewide 26.9% Self-Serving Bias: Author 21.4%, sitewide 3.7% Appeal to Emotion: Author 11.7%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 7.8%, sitewide 11.1% Hindsight Bias: Author 10.9%, sitewide 1.4% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.4%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.1%, sitewide 8.1% Special Pleading: Author 7.8%, sitewide 0.3% Confirmation Bias: Author 7.1%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 4.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.9%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 2.8%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 1.4%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.8%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 2.2%, sitewide 4.0% Status Quo Bias: Author 3.9%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 3.3%, sitewide 2.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.5%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 2.8%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 2.7%, sitewide 2.7% Pessimism Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 2.3%, sitewide 1.7% Bandwagon: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst