Author summary
81%1 analyzed article/video769 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Perkin Amalaraj results contain 28 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 15.5% saturation with 478 hits. Analysis detected 3,754 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,076 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.4% and a BS Rank of 78% (1,365 of 6,195 authors). This Perkin Amalaraj is worse (more manipulative) than 78.00% of the peer group.
Perkin Amalaraj
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
78%Perkin Amalaraj (selected)5%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 3,076
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

78% percentile
025507510078.0% percentile
4.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.1K 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 5.0%5.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 2.7%2.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 1.5%1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Author 14.9%14.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 15.2%15.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 14.3%14.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 3.1%3.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 1.0%1.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 1.1%1.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 15.5%15.5%

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 5.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 15.5%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 15.2%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 14.9%, sitewide 3.3%Hasty Generalization: Author 14.3%, sitewide 8.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 3.1%, sitewide 9.1%Anecdotal: Author 8.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Author 7.6%, sitewide 4.6%In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 4.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.5%, sitewide 5.3%Circular Reasoning: Author 4.0%, sitewide 0.1%False Dilemma: Author 3.6%, sitewide 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 3.3%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.0%, sitewide 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection: Author 1.8%, sitewide 0.0%Unattributed Quote: Author 1.8%, sitewide 1.1%Begging the Question: Author 1.1%, sitewide 1.7%Hindsight Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 1.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos