BS Summary: These Julia Ingram results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.2% saturation with 867 hits. Analysis detected 6,314 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,096 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (2,740 of 4,642 authors). This Julia Ingram is better (less manipulative) than 59.00% of the peer group.
Julia Ingram
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Sophia Gates0%
⁠0%SIMRAN PARWANI0%
⁠0%SILVIA STELLACCI0%
⁠1%Sergey Radchenko0%
⁠1%Robert Lloyd0%
⁠41%Julia Ingram (selected)3%
⁠100%Kanoko Matsuyama54%
⁠100%Alex Horton56%
⁠100%Zahara Hill58%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt70%
⁠100%Bill Radke70%
Author details
Total words: 7,096
Article count: 1
Publications
Loading chart...
Attribute Prevalence (Top 48)
Julia Ingram attribute prevalence percentages (biases/fallacies), sorted highest to lowest.
Loading chart...
Julia Ingram vs All Other Publications
Julia Ingram attribute percentages, with an overlaid baseline for all publications (Overall) for those same attributes.