Author summary
83% 37 analyzed articles/videos 12,284 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel Farr results contain 53 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Biased Writer Voice , and Appeal to Emotion , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.1% saturation with 10,276 hits . Analysis detected 64,644 faulty-reasoning hits from 60,192 analyzed words across 37 articles, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of 43% (5,028 of 8,706 authors). This Daniel Farr is better (less manipulative) than 57.70% of the peer group. Daniel Farr
Author details
Total words: 60,192
Article count: 37
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
42% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 42.3% percentile 2.0% BS Score37 analyzed articles60.2K 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 12.5% 12.5% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 3.0% 3.0% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 8.0% 8.0% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 12.0% 12.0% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.9% 0.9% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.4% 1.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.3% 2.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 4.7% 4.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.9% 3.9% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.5% 0.5% 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 12.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 17.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 8.0%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 12.0%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Authority: Author 3.0%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 4.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 2.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.0%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 4.0% Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 1.4% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.2%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 2.7% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.6%, sitewide 1.1% Loss Aversion: Author 1.2%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst