Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 1,378 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Regina Medina results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Framing Effect , and Availability Heuristic , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.7% saturation with 1,147 hits . Analysis detected 6,386 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,134 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.3% and a BS Rank of 78% (1,396 of 6,163 authors). This Regina Medina is worse (more manipulative) than 77.40% of the peer group. Regina Medina
Author details
Total words: 4,134
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
77% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 77.4% percentile 4.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.1K 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 Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.1% 1.1% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 17.7% 17.7% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 27.8% 27.8% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 13.9% 13.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 15.8% 15.8% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.6% 1.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.6% 1.6% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 0.6% 0.6% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.2% 0.2% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.9% 3.9% 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% Negativity Bias: Author 27.8%, sitewide 19.2% Framing Effect: Author 17.7%, sitewide 26.9% Appeal to Emotion: Author 19.5%, sitewide 15.9% Availability Heuristic: Author 15.8%, sitewide 9.1% In-Group Bias: Author 13.9%, sitewide 6.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.1%, sitewide 11.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 7.5% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 6.8%, sitewide 3.3% Halo Effect: Author 1.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 5.4%, sitewide 5.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.6%, sitewide 5.3% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.6% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 4.3%, sitewide 2.7% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 4.2%, sitewide 2.0% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.6%, sitewide 3.7% Ad Hominem: Author 3.2%, sitewide 2.2% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 3.1% Loss Aversion: Author 3.1%, sitewide 2.5% Genetic Fallacy: Author 3.0%, sitewide 1.4% Recency Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Red Herring: Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.7% Negativity Bias Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst