Speaker summary
⁠83%1 analyzed article/video148.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Anamaria Musca results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, In-Group Bias, and Framing Effect, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 57.6% saturation with 85.5 hits. Analysis detected 443.25 faulty-reasoning hits from 148.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 40.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (11,124 of 26,837 speakers). This Anamaria Musca is worse (more manipulative) than 58.60% of the peer group.
Anamaria Musca
Speaker details
Total words: 148.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

59% percentile
025507510058.6% percentile
40.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos148.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 57.6%57.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 53.8%53.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 53.8%53.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 42.4%42.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 28.8%28.8%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 21.2%21.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 28.8%28.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Indoctrination: Speaker 57.6%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 53.8%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 53.8%, sitewide 6.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 42.4%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 28.8%, sitewide 26.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 28.8%, sitewide 6.0%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 21.2%, sitewide 1.9%IndoctrinationSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos