Author summary
72% 7 analyzed articles/videos 4,136 analyzed words
BS Summary: These AFP teams in Tehran results contain 46 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Appeal to Emotion , and Biased Writer Voice , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 10.9% saturation with 2,411 hits . Analysis detected 17,282 faulty-reasoning hits from 22,126 analyzed words across 7 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of 33% (6,433 of 9,471 authors). This AFP teams in Tehran is better (less manipulative) than 67.90% of the peer group. AFP teams in Tehran
Author details
Total words: 22,126
Article count: 7
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
32% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 32.1% percentile 1.7% BS Score7 analyzed articles22.1K 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% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 9.8% 9.8% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 4.3% 4.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 10.9% 10.9% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 3.6% 3.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.3% 2.3% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 1.9% 1.9% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.1% 2.1% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.3% 1.3% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.4% 0.4% 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 9.8%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 10.9%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.3%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 3.6%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.3%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 1.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.9%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 1.7%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 3.1%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.9%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.7% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.6%, sitewide 1.1% Pessimism Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 1.9% Loss Aversion: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.5% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.8% Quote-first Misdirection: Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst