Author summary
75% 4 analyzed articles/videos 4,268 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Philip Drost results contain 46 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Anecdotal , and Optimism Bias , with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 4.6% saturation with 741 hits . Analysis detected 9,037 faulty-reasoning hits from 16,122 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.2% and a BS Rank of 14% (8,210 of 9,471 authors). This Philip Drost is better (less manipulative) than 86.70% of the peer group. Philip Drost
Author details
Total words: 16,122
Article count: 4
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
13% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 13.3% percentile 1.2% BS Score4 analyzed articles16.1K 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 2.3% 2.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 3.0% 3.0% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 4.1% 4.1% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 3.1% 3.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.7% 1.7% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.9% 1.9% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.2% 2.2% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 1.3% 1.3% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.5% 0.5% 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 2.3%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.1%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 3.1%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 4.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 2.2%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 3.8%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 4.0%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.8%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Indoctrination: Author 2.1%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst