Author summary
51% 3 analyzed articles/videos 3,011 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Doug Smith results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Anecdotal , and Appeal to Emotion , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 8.8% saturation with 1,061 hits . Analysis detected 6,901 faulty-reasoning hits from 12,044 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 28% (6,783 of 9,410 authors). This Doug Smith is better (less manipulative) than 72.10% of the peer group. Doug Smith
Author details
Total words: 12,044
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
28% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 27.9% percentile 1.6% BS Score3 analyzed articles12K 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 8.8% 8.8% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 3.5% 3.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 8.6% 8.6% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.9% 1.9% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.2% 0.2% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.3% 0.3% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 1.9% 1.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.1% 3.1% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.9% 0.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.7% 2.7% 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 8.8%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 8.6%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 3.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 1.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.4%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 4.9%, sitewide 5.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.0%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.7%, sitewide 1.1% Recency Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.5% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.7% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.6%, sitewide 0.8% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst