Speaker summary
⁠34%3 analyzed articles/videos191.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Charlene Wang results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 9.4% saturation with 29 hits. Analysis detected 132.97 faulty-reasoning hits from 191.333 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 7.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (26,542 of 28,364 speakers). This Charlene Wang is better (less manipulative) than 93.60% of the peer group.
Charlene Wang
Speaker details
Total words: 191.333
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

6% percentile
02550751006.4% percentile
7.5% BS Score3 analyzed videos191.3 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 12.6%12.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 5.5%5.5%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 8.2%8.2%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 6.5%6.5%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 5.5%5.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 9.3%9.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 4.9%4.9%

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 12.6%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 5.5%, sitewide 15.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 9.3%, sitewide 7.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 8.2%, sitewide 3.1%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 6.5%, sitewide 1.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 4.9%, sitewide 6.0%Recency Bias: Speaker 5.5%, sitewide 2.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos