Author summary
87% 2 analyzed articles/videos 770 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Peter Schorsch results contain 30 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect , Framing Effect , and Appeal to Emotion , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 16.7% saturation with 550 hits . Analysis detected 4,014 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,284 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 4.1% and a BS Rank of 76% (1,607 of 6,628 authors). This Peter Schorsch is worse (more manipulative) than 75.80% of the peer group. Peter Schorsch
Author details
Total words: 3,284
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
76% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 75.8% percentile 4.1% BS Score2 analyzed articles3.3K 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% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 0.5% 0.5% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 10.1% 10.1% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 16.8% 16.8% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 16.1% 16.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.2% 1.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 9.9% 9.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 3.1% 3.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 9.4% 9.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 7.7% 7.7% Post Hoc (False Cause) Sitewide 3.3% Author 6.6% 6.6% 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 10.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 19.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 16.8%, sitewide 5.3% Halo Effect: Author 16.1%, sitewide 6.7% Appeal to Emotion: Author 9.9%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 7.7%, sitewide 11.1% Optimism Bias: Author 9.4%, sitewide 6.0% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.2%, sitewide 9.1% In-Group Bias: Author 8.8%, sitewide 6.9% Hasty Generalization: Author 7.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.1%, sitewide 7.5% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 6.6%, sitewide 3.3% Anecdotal: Author 2.6%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 3.7% Bandwagon: Author 3.3%, sitewide 2.2% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.5% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.2%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 1.3%, sitewide 1.7% Sunk Cost Effect: Author 1.6%, sitewide 0.3% False Dilemma: Author 1.5%, sitewide 1.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst