Author summary
41% 10 analyzed articles/videos 4,935 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Emily St. Martin results contain 46 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Halo Effect , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 6.4% saturation with 1,768 hits . Analysis detected 16,423 faulty-reasoning hits from 27,828 analyzed words across 10 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.3% and a BS Rank of 16% (7,996 of 9,470 authors). This Emily St. Martin is better (less manipulative) than 84.40% of the peer group. Emily St. Martin
Author details
Total words: 27,828
Article count: 10
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
16% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 15.6% percentile 1.3% BS Score10 analyzed articles27.8K 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 5.5% 5.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 5.7% 5.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.3% 6.3% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 3.2% 3.2% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 1.2% 1.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.2% 2.2% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.6% 0.6% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.8% 1.8% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.2% 0.2% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.1% 0.1% 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 5.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 5.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.3%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 3.2%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.2%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 1.2%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 5.0%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 2.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.5%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.5%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst