Topic summary
⁠0%5 analyzed articles/videos2,832 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Natalie Harp results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.7% saturation with 3,259 hits. Analysis detected 18,428 faulty-reasoning hits from 13,203 analyzed words across 5 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (7,365 of 16,559 topics). This Natalie Harp is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the peer group.
Natalie Harp

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

56% percentile
025507510055.5% percentile
3.2% BS Score5 analyzed articles13.2K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 11.6%11.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.9%4.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 15.7%15.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.4%0.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.9%2.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.3%0.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 24.7%24.7%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Topic 4.9%4.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.6%0.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.8%2.8%

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: Topic 11.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 24.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 15.7%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Topic 8.1%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 10.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 9.5%, sitewide 7.5%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 9.1%Anecdotal: Topic 8.4%, sitewide 5.2%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 6.0%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 0.0%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 4.6%Ad Hominem: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 2.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.1%Recency Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Horn Effect: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 1.0%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos