Author summary
0% 2 analyzed articles/videos 338 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Rachel Carlson results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias , Hasty Generalization , and Appeal to Nature , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 35.6% saturation with 291 hits . Analysis detected 1,662 faulty-reasoning hits from 818 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 8.5% and a BS Rank of 93% (459 of 6,361 authors). This Rachel Carlson is worse (more manipulative) than 92.80% of the peer group. Rachel Carlson
Author details
Total words: 818
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
93% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 92.8% percentile 8.5% BS Score2 analyzed articles818 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% Appeal to Nature Sitewide 0.2% Author 17.1% 17.1% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 4.4% 4.4% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 19.2% 19.2% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 16.5% 16.5% Representativeness Heuris… Sitewide 1.9% Author 14.3% 14.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 3.7% 3.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 17.7% 17.7% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 35.6% 35.6% Recency Bias Sitewide 2.7% Author 10.8% 10.8% Ambiguity (Equivocation) Sitewide 0.8% Author 8.4% 8.4% 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% Framing Effect: Author 35.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 4.4%, sitewide 19.2% Optimism Bias: Author 19.2%, sitewide 6.0% Hasty Generalization: Author 17.7%, sitewide 8.1% Appeal to Nature: Author 17.1%, sitewide 0.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 16.5%, sitewide 4.0% Appeal to Emotion: Author 3.7%, sitewide 15.9% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 14.3%, sitewide 1.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 8.1%, sitewide 11.1% Recency Bias: Author 10.8%, sitewide 2.7% Availability Heuristic: Author 8.6%, sitewide 9.1% Overconfidence Bias: Author 9.1%, sitewide 4.6% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 8.4%, sitewide 0.8% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 2.4%, sitewide 6.7% Bandwagon: Author 6.6%, sitewide 2.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 6.0%, sitewide 3.3% Status Quo Bias: Author 6.0%, sitewide 2.2% Anecdotal: Author 0.2%, sitewide 5.2% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 3.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.5%, sitewide 2.5% Blind-Spot Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.2% Primacy Effect: Author 2.0%, sitewide 0.9% Red Herring: Author 1.1%, sitewide 0.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst