Author summary
66% 1 analyzed article/video 1,199 analyzed words
BS Summary: These PhD results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias , Hasty Generalization , and Indoctrination , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 17% saturation with 815 hits . Analysis detected 5,106 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,796 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of 59% (2,577 of 6,206 authors). This PhD is worse (more manipulative) than 58.50% of the peer group. PhD
Author details
Total words: 4,796
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
59% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 58.5% percentile 3.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.8K 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% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 6.9% 6.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 4.4% 4.4% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 17.0% 17.0% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.1% 6.1% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 7.4% 7.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 4.7% 4.7% Attempt to Sell a Product… Sitewide 0.5% Author 6.8% 6.8% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.5% 0.5% Self-Serving Bias Sitewide 3.7% Author 0.7% 0.7% 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 6.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 4.4%, sitewide 19.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 17.0%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.1%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 4.7%, sitewide 11.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 10.2%, sitewide 7.5% Availability Heuristic: Author 6.3%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 7.6%, sitewide 8.1% Indoctrination: Author 7.4%, sitewide 0.0% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 6.8%, sitewide 0.5% Optimism Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.3%, sitewide 5.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 4.0% Pessimism Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 1.9% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.7%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.5% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.8% Bandwagon: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Begging the Question: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst