Author summary
⁠24%2 analyzed articles/videos445 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Christina Burkhart results contain 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 7.2% saturation with 129 hits. Analysis detected 645 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,780 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (3,613 of 9,098 authors). This Christina Burkhart is worse (more manipulative) than 60.30% of the peer group.
Christina Burkhart
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Hannah Martin1%
⁠0%Paul DeMark1%
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%Emma Sedlak1%
⁠0%Michael Fox1%
⁠61%Christina Burkhart (selected)3%
⁠100%Bannon's WarRoom39%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 1,780
Article count: 2
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

60% percentile
025507510060.3% percentile
2.6% BS Score2 analyzed articles1.8K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 0.8%0.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 7.1%7.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 2.2%2.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 4.5%4.5%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 1.1%1.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 0.7%0.7%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Author 3.7%3.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Author 3.9%3.9%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 1.2%1.2%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Author 0.7%0.7%

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 0.8%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 7.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Author 4.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 2.2%, sitewide 9.1%Optimism Bias: Author 7.3%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.1%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 4.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 3.9%, sitewide 0.8%Indoctrination: Author 3.7%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 1.7%, sitewide 2.5%Middle Ground: Author 0.5%, sitewide 0.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos