Author summary
79% 1 analyzed article/video 1,925 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Susan Muscarella results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Appeal to Authority , and Post Hoc (False Cause) , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 33.6% saturation with 2,588 hits . Analysis detected 6,555 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,700 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.4% and a BS Rank of 76% (2,279 of 9,281 authors). This Susan Muscarella is worse (more manipulative) than 75.50% of the peer group. Susan Muscarella
Author details
Total words: 7,700
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
76% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 75.5% percentile 3.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles7.7K 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% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 33.6% 33.6% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 1.5% 1.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 0.4% 0.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 2.6% 2.6% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 13.4% 13.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.2% 1.2% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.3% 1.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.3% 2.3% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.4% 1.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.6% 3.6% 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% Halo Effect: Author 33.6%, sitewide 6.7% Framing Effect: Author 1.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 2.6%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 13.4%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Authority: Author 7.8%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.2%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 2.2%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.6% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.4%, sitewide 3.3% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 3.7% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% False Dilemma: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.5% Indoctrination: Author 1.4%, sitewide 0.0% Quote-first Misdirection: Author 0.9%, sitewide 0.0% Circular Reasoning: Author 0.8%, sitewide 0.1% Halo Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst