Author summary
23% 2 analyzed articles/videos 946 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel Payne results contain 20 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect , Optimism Bias , and Anecdotal , with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 9.1% saturation with 344 hits . Analysis detected 1,415 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,784 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.9% and a BS Rank of 37% (5,471 of 8,557 authors). This Daniel Payne is better (less manipulative) than 63.90% of the peer group. Daniel Payne
Author details
Total words: 3,784
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
36% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 36.1% percentile 1.9% BS Score2 analyzed articles3.8K 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 1.8% 1.8% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.5% 1.5% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.1% 1.1% Attempt to Sell a Product… Sitewide 0.5% Author 9.1% 9.1% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 0.9% 0.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.0% 1.0% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.7% 0.7% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 0.9% 0.9% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 2.5% 2.5% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 3.6% 3.6% 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 1.8%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.1%, sitewide 11.1% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 9.1%, sitewide 0.5% Hasty Generalization: Author 0.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 4.5%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 3.6%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.9%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 2.5%, sitewide 5.2% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.2%, sitewide 3.3% Loss Aversion: Author 1.7%, sitewide 2.5% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.9% Indoctrination: Author 1.9%, sitewide 0.0% False Dilemma: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.5% Unattributed Quote: Author 0.9%, sitewide 1.1% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 0.4%, sitewide 0.8% Sunk Cost Effect: Author 0.5%, sitewide 0.3% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst