Speaker summary
⁠28%2 analyzed articles/videos167 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Cathy Engelbert results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 25.6% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 291.433 faulty-reasoning hits from 167 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 14.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠22% (22,294 of 28,364 speakers). This Cathy Engelbert is better (less manipulative) than 78.60% of the peer group.
Cathy Engelbert
Speaker details
Total words: 167
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

21% percentile
025507510021.4% percentile
14.5% BS Score2 analyzed videos167 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 9.7%9.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 15.9%15.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 25.6%25.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 15.9%15.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 15.9%15.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 12.9%12.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 15.9%15.9%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 9.7%9.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 9.7%9.7%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 9.7%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 25.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 15.9%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 15.9%, sitewide 5.3%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 15.9%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Speaker 15.9%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Speaker 12.9%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Speaker 9.7%, sitewide 5.2%In-Group Bias: Speaker 9.7%, sitewide 6.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos