Author summary
⁠96%1 analyzed article/video938 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Miriam Cates results contain 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Anecdotal, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 31.8% saturation with 895 hits. Analysis detected 5,511 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,814 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 6.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠90% (660 of 6,244 authors). This Miriam Cates is worse (more manipulative) than 89.40% of the peer group.
Miriam Cates
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠90%Miriam Cates (selected)7%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 2,814
Article count: 1
Publications
Loading chart...
Attribute Prevalence (Top 48)
Miriam Cates attribute prevalence percentages (biases/fallacies), sorted highest to lowest.
Loading chart...
Miriam Cates vs sitewide
Miriam Cates attribute percentages, with an overlaid sitewide baseline for those same attributes.

Analyzed articles and videos