Speaker summary
⁠78%1 analyzed article/video133.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Deborah Warren results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 58% saturation with 77.376 hits. Analysis detected 274.376 faulty-reasoning hits from 133.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 22.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠37% (17,888 of 28,364 speakers). This Deborah Warren is better (less manipulative) than 63.10% of the peer group.
Deborah Warren
Speaker details
Total words: 133.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

37% percentile
025507510036.9% percentile
22.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos133.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 58.0%58.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 30.2%30.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 42.0%42.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 11.1%11.1%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 10.5%10.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 14.4%14.4%Red HerringSitewide 0.7%Speaker 5.0%5.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 11.6%11.6%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 58.0%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 42.0%, sitewide 26.9%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 30.2%, sitewide 9.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 14.4%, sitewide 19.2%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 11.6%, sitewide 7.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 11.1%, sitewide 0.8%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 10.5%, sitewide 1.9%Red Herring: Speaker 5.0%, sitewide 0.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos