9.4K authors ranked Framing Effect 21.7% higher vs 59.9% lower
Signal gap atlas Distance shows how strongly the high and low ends of the ranking separate.
Focus signalFraming Effect Attempt to Sell a Product or Service Negativity Bias Appeal to Authority Halo Effect In-Group Bias Availability Heuristic Politically Right Leaning Bias Primacy Effect Hasty Generalization Loss Aversion Appeal to Emotion High and low ranking signal comparison Horizontal connected dots compare higher-score, lower-score, and overall rates for each reasoning signal. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Framing Effect 60% 22% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service Negativity Bias Appeal to Authority Halo Effect In-Group Bias Availability Heuristic Politically Right Leaning Bias Primacy Effect Hasty Generalization Loss Aversion Appeal to Emotion
Rank terrain Position connects percentile, BS score, and the amount of supporting analysis.
All Higher Lower
BS score by ranking percentile Dots show ranking examples. Horizontal position is percentile, vertical position is BS score, and dot size reflects supporting analyzed items. 0 25 50 75 100th 0% 50% 100% Ranking percentile BS score Sarah Matthews Selected exampleSarah Matthews Amber Guetebier Kaylyn McKenna Mike Coté J.A. Frascino Becca Lewis Hello Harford Eric Daugherty Aditya Chakrabortty Kirsty Major Bill Radke Kevin Kniestedt Greg Miller Siham Shamalakh Greg Rosenstein Monica Alba Alex Horton Silvia Foster-Frau Stella Canino-Quiñones Van Charles Reasoning fingerprint for Sarah Matthews A radial comparison of the selected example and the overall average across prominent reasoning signals. Framing Effect Negativity Bias Biased Writer Vo… Attempt to Sell … Appeal to Author… Hasty Generaliza… Appeal to Emotion Halo Effect BS score 100.0%
Percentile 100%
Strongest shown Negativity Bias · 77.4%
Reading the view: the atlas compares group averages, the terrain shows only the ranking-edge examples supplied by the snapshot, and the fingerprint compares one selected example with the eligible-profile average.