Speaker summary
ā 81%1 analyzed article/video781.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Amy Shah results contain 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Optimism Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 27.7% saturation with 216.48 hits. Analysis detected 1,961.772 faulty-reasoning hits from 781.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 7.4% and a BS Rank of ā 7% (26,583 of 28,364 speakers). This Amy Shah is better (less manipulative) than 93.70% of the peer group.
Amy Shah
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
ā 0%The Brookings Institution1%
ā 0%Gen Jack Keane1%
ā 0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
ā 0%Mike Muse1%
ā 0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
ā 7%Amy Shah (selected)8%
ā 100%4MATIV100%
ā 100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
ā 100%314 Action Fund100%
ā 100%21 Grams100%
ā 100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 781.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

6% percentile
02550751006.3% percentile
7.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos781.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 6.9%6.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 27.7%27.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 4.4%4.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 5.5%5.5%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 11.6%11.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 10.8%10.8%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 9.1%9.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 13.3%13.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 14.6%14.6%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 10.4%10.4%

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%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 27.7%, sitewide 8.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 6.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 4.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 17.9%, sitewide 11.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 5.5%, sitewide 15.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 14.6%, sitewide 6.0%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 13.5%, sitewide 9.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 13.3%, sitewide 4.6%False Dilemma: Speaker 11.6%, sitewide 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 10.8%, sitewide 0.8%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 10.4%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Speaker 9.4%, sitewide 2.7%Indoctrination: Speaker 9.1%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Speaker 8.5%, sitewide 2.2%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 3.3%, sitewide 7.5%Burden of Proof: Speaker 7.2%, sitewide 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic: Speaker 7.2%, sitewide 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 7.0%, sitewide 3.3%In-Group Bias: Speaker 5.5%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 1.8%, sitewide 5.2%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 4.3%, sitewide 3.7%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 2.8%, sitewide 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Speaker 3.6%, sitewide 0.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos