Author summary
89% 1 analyzed article/video 918 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Tiffany Koyama Lane results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Appeal to Emotion , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 16.7% saturation with 613 hits . Analysis detected 3,950 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,672 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.1% and a BS Rank of 71% (2,766 of 9,456 authors). This Tiffany Koyama Lane is worse (more manipulative) than 70.80% of the peer group. Tiffany Koyama Lane
Author details
Total words: 3,672
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
71% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 70.8% percentile 3.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.7K 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% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 9.6% 9.6% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 16.7% 16.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.6% 1.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 8.0% 8.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 11.9% 11.9% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 5.6% 5.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.4% 1.4% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.3% 1.3% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.7% 0.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 4.5% 4.5% 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 9.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 11.9%, sitewide 19.2% Biased Writer Voice: Author 16.7%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Emotion: Author 8.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.6%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 6.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 4.5%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 4.0%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 6.3%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 6.0% Indoctrination: Author 5.6%, sitewide 0.0% Anecdotal: Author 3.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 4.6% Self-Serving Bias: Author 4.3%, sitewide 3.7% Anchoring Bias: Author 2.8%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.3%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 1.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 2.0%, sitewide 2.5% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 2.0% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst