Author summary
48% 3 analyzed articles/videos 2,192 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Brattleboro Reformer results contain 34 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect , Self-Serving Bias , and Appeal to Emotion , with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 7.5% saturation with 658 hits . Analysis detected 5,010 faulty-reasoning hits from 8,768 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of 30% (6,174 of 8,788 authors). This Brattleboro Reformer is better (less manipulative) than 70.30% of the peer group. Brattleboro Reformer
Author details
Total words: 8,768
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
30% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 29.7% percentile 1.7% BS Score3 analyzed articles8.8K 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 2.9% 2.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.4% 1.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 3.4% 3.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 3.2% 3.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.1% 2.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.7% 0.7% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.3% 2.3% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.8% 2.8% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 0.6% 0.6% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.7% 1.7% 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 2.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 3.4%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 3.2%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.8%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 7.5% Optimism Bias: Author 7.5%, sitewide 6.0% In-Group Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 6.2%, sitewide 6.7% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 1.7%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 4.6% Self-Serving Bias: Author 4.2%, sitewide 3.7% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 3.3%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 1.4%, sitewide 1.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst