Author summary
37% 1 analyzed article/video 705 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Luke Miller results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause) , Indoctrination , and Optimism Bias , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 9.5% saturation with 268 hits . Analysis detected 1,498 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,820 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of 48% (4,896 of 9,294 authors). This Luke Miller is better (less manipulative) than 52.70% of the peer group. Luke Miller
Author details
Total words: 2,820
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
47% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 47.3% percentile 2.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.8K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–25%
0.0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.8% 1.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.3% 2.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.1% 1.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 9.5% 9.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.6% 1.6% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 4.8% 4.8% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.9% 2.9% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.9% 3.9% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 2.8% 2.8% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 5% 5% 10% 10% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% Negativity Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 9.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.3%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 4.5%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.8%, sitewide 5.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.9%, sitewide 3.3% Indoctrination: Author 4.8%, sitewide 0.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 3.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.5% Ad Hominem: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Pessimism Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 1.4%, sitewide 1.5% Hindsight Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 1.4% Circular Reasoning: Author 1.4%, sitewide 0.1% Straw Man: Author 1.2%, sitewide 0.9% Unattributed Quote: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.1% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 0.6%, sitewide 0.8% Negativity Bias Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst