Speaker summary
⁠85%1 analyzed article/video101 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Donna DeDiemar results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Anecdotal, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 51% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 319.74 faulty-reasoning hits from 101 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 31.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (14,463 of 28,364 speakers). This Donna DeDiemar is better (less manipulative) than 51.00% of the peer group.
Donna DeDiemar
Speaker details
Total words: 101
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

49% percentile
025507510049.0% percentile
31.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos101 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 65.3%65.3%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 51.0%51.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 53.3%53.3%Genetic FallacySitewide 1.4%Speaker 25.5%25.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 27.4%27.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 6.5%6.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 13.7%13.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 6.5%6.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 65.3%, sitewide 3.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 53.3%, sitewide 8.1%Ad Hominem: Speaker 51.0%, sitewide 2.2%Anecdotal: Speaker 27.4%, sitewide 5.2%Genetic Fallacy: Speaker 25.5%, sitewide 1.4%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 13.7%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 6.5%, sitewide 7.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 6.5%, sitewide 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos