Author summary
93% 2 analyzed articles/videos 1,150 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Phillip Linderman results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias , Confirmation Bias , and Hasty Generalization , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 2,564 hits . Analysis detected 12,995 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,920 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.8% and a BS Rank of 73% (1,732 of 6,350 authors). This Phillip Linderman is worse (more manipulative) than 72.70% of the peer group. Phillip Linderman
Author details
Total words: 7,920
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
73% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 72.7% percentile 3.8% BS Score2 analyzed articles7.9K 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% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 32.4% 32.4% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 8.6% 8.6% Politically Right Leaning… Sitewide 1.4% Author 19.0% 19.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 18.1% 18.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 5.6% 5.6% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.1% 1.1% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 10.3% 10.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.5% 2.5% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 5.4% 5.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% 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% Biased Writer Voice: Author 32.4%, sitewide 5.3% Framing Effect: Author 8.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 10.3%, sitewide 19.2% Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 19.0%, sitewide 1.4% Confirmation Bias: Author 18.1%, sitewide 7.5% Appeal to Emotion: Author 5.6%, sitewide 15.9% Hasty Generalization: Author 13.3%, sitewide 8.1% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.1%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.5%, sitewide 9.1% In-Group Bias: Author 4.8%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.4%, sitewide 6.7% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 6.6%, sitewide 2.7% Indoctrination: Author 5.4%, sitewide 0.0% Anecdotal: Author 0.9%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.6% Begging the Question: Author 4.1%, sitewide 1.7% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 3.5%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 3.1%, sitewide 3.1% Ad Hominem: Author 2.8%, sitewide 2.2% Loss Aversion: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.5% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.1% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst