Author summary
⁠15%2 analyzed articles/videos1,902 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Sarah Phillips results contain 16 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Optimism Bias, and Anecdotal, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 5.9% saturation with 541 hits. Analysis detected 2,315 faulty-reasoning hits from 9,134 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠26% (6,428 of 8,600 authors). This Sarah Phillips is better (less manipulative) than 74.70% of the peer group.
Sarah Phillips
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Hannah Martin1%
⁠0%Paul DeMark1%
⁠0%Emma Sedlak1%
⁠0%Michael Fox1%
⁠0%San Antonio Report Staff1%
⁠26%Sarah Phillips (selected)2%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 9,134
Article count: 2
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

25% percentile
025507510025.3% percentile
1.6% BS Score2 analyzed articles9.1K 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 0.5%0.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 1.1%1.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 0.6%0.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 0.4%0.4%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Author 5.1%5.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 1.9%1.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 0.3%0.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Author 0.2%0.2%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Author 2.3%2.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 3.7%3.7%

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 0.5%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Author 1.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 0.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 0.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 5.9%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Author 1.9%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Author 2.3%, sitewide 5.2%Indoctrination: Author 5.1%, sitewide 0.0%Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.2%, sitewide 3.3%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Author 0.5%, sitewide 1.5%Hindsight Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.4%Appeal to Nature: Author 0.1%, sitewide 0.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos