Author summary
72% 1 analyzed article/video 826 analyzed words
BS Summary: These David Hogberg results contain 28 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias , Hasty Generalization , and Post Hoc (False Cause) , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 9.1% saturation with 300 hits . Analysis detected 2,298 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,304 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.5% and a BS Rank of 59% (3,922 of 9,538 authors). This David Hogberg is worse (more manipulative) than 58.90% of the peer group. David Hogberg
Author details
Total words: 3,304
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
59% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 58.9% percentile 2.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.3K 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 5.2% 5.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.2% 1.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 0.3% 0.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.2% 1.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 4.5% 4.5% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.6% 1.6% Post Hoc (False Cause) Sitewide 3.3% Author 7.1% 7.1% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 9.1% 9.1% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.7% 0.7% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% 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 5.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 0.3%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 4.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.2%, sitewide 9.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 9.1%, sitewide 5.3% Hasty Generalization: Author 7.2%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 7.7%, sitewide 7.5% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 7.1%, sitewide 3.3% Halo Effect: Author 1.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 6.5%, sitewide 6.0% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 3.7% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 2.6%, sitewide 1.4% Loss Aversion: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.5% Slippery Slope: Author 2.3%, sitewide 1.7% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.0%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.7% Indoctrination: Author 1.6%, sitewide 0.0% False Dilemma: Author 1.3%, sitewide 1.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst