Speaker summary
⁠54%3 analyzed articles/videos201.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Amanda Bakker results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 48.8% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 572 faulty-reasoning hits from 201.333 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 23.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠38% (16,797 of 27,030 speakers). This Amanda Bakker is better (less manipulative) than 62.10% of the peer group.
Amanda Bakker
Speaker details
Total words: 201.333
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

38% percentile
025507510037.9% percentile
23.7% BS Score3 analyzed videos201.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Speaker 32.9%32.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 35.0%35.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 30.6%30.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 48.8%48.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 15.4%15.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 22.4%22.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 10.9%10.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 3.3%3.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Framing Effect: Speaker 48.8%, sitewide 26.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 35.0%, sitewide 7.5%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 32.9%, sitewide 4.0%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 22.4%, sitewide 11.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 15.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 15.4%, sitewide 0.8%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 10.9%, sitewide 4.6%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 3.3%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos