Author summary
85% 13 analyzed articles/videos 4,015 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Titus Wu results contain 52 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Framing Effect , and Appeal to Emotion , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.1% saturation with 6,587 hits . Analysis detected 41,050 faulty-reasoning hits from 29,830 analyzed words across 13 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of 51% (3,011 of 6,135 authors). This Titus Wu is worse (more manipulative) than 50.90% of the peer group. Titus Wu
Author details
Total words: 29,830
Article count: 13
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
51% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 50.9% percentile 2.6% BS Score13 analyzed articles29.8K 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 12.5% 12.5% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 17.4% 17.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 3.4% 3.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 9.6% 9.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.8% 0.8% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.4% 0.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.5% 3.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 2.4% 2.4% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.9% 1.9% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 1.2% 1.2% 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 12.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 22.1%, sitewide 19.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 17.4%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Emotion: Author 9.6%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 3.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.5%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 6.8%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 4.8%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.8%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 1.9%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 4.6% Self-Serving Bias: Author 4.6%, sitewide 3.7% Ad Hominem: Author 4.2%, sitewide 2.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 4.0% Unattributed Quote: Author 3.9%, sitewide 1.1% Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 3.8%, sitewide 1.4% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.7%, sitewide 3.3% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 3.2%, sitewide 0.8% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst