Author summary
⁠18%6 analyzed articles/videos4,067 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jordan Liles results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 5.1% saturation with 801 hits. Analysis detected 7,798 faulty-reasoning hits from 15,839 analyzed words across 6 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠10% (8,005 of 8,838 authors). This Jordan Liles is better (less manipulative) than 90.60% of the peer group.
Jordan Liles
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Hannah Martin1%
⁠0%Paul DeMark1%
⁠0%Emma Sedlak1%
⁠0%Michael Fox1%
⁠0%San Antonio Report Staff1%
⁠10%Jordan Liles (selected)2%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 15,839
Article count: 6
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

9% percentile
02550751009.4% percentile
1.1% BS Score6 analyzed articles15.8K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 1.1%1.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 3.2%3.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 2.8%2.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 0.6%0.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 5.1%5.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 3.1%3.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 0.6%0.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 3.4%3.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 3.0%3.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Author 1.6%1.6%

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 1.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 2.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 5.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 3.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 3.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Author 0.6%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.6%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 3.0%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.8%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 3.1%Recency Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection: Author 2.3%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.7%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Author 0.0%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.9%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos