Author summary
⁠71%4 analyzed articles/videos2,474 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Shimul Sood results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 980 hits. Analysis detected 7,980 faulty-reasoning hits from 9,896 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠53% (4,446 of 9,444 authors). This Shimul Sood is worse (more manipulative) than 52.90% of the peer group.
Shimul Sood
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Hannah Martin1%
⁠0%Paul DeMark1%
⁠0%Emma Sedlak1%
⁠0%Michael Fox1%
⁠0%San Antonio Report Staff1%
⁠53%Shimul Sood (selected)3%
⁠100%Bannon's WarRoom39%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 9,896
Article count: 4
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

53% percentile
025507510052.9% percentile
2.3% BS Score4 analyzed articles9.9K 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 9.9%9.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 4.6%4.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 3.0%3.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 2.3%2.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Author 0.6%0.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 3.4%3.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Author 1.8%1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Author 4.9%4.9%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 0.2%0.2%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%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 9.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 4.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 3.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 2.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 3.4%, sitewide 9.1%Biased Writer Voice: Author 8.7%, sitewide 5.3%Hasty Generalization: Author 5.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 4.2%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Author 1.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Author 3.6%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Author 4.5%, sitewide 5.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 4.9%, sitewide 0.5%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 3.7%Indoctrination: Author 3.7%, sitewide 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.8%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.2%, sitewide 0.8%Status Quo Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos