Speaker summary
⁠63%1 analyzed article/video49.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Donna Stanley results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority, and Halo Effect, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 37 hits. Analysis detected 228 faulty-reasoning hits from 49.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 39% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (12,092 of 28,364 speakers). This Donna Stanley is worse (more manipulative) than 57.40% of the peer group.
Donna Stanley
Speaker details
Total words: 49.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

57% percentile
025507510057.4% percentile
39.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos49.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 78.4%78.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 39.2%39.2%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 39.2%39.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 39.2%39.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 39.2%39.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 39.2%39.2%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 10.8%10.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 16.2%16.2%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Ad Hominem: Speaker 78.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 39.2%, sitewide 11.1%Halo Effect: Speaker 39.2%, sitewide 6.7%Negativity Bias: Speaker 39.2%, sitewide 19.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 39.2%, sitewide 0.0%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 39.2%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 16.2%, sitewide 15.9%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 10.8%, sitewide 1.9%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos