Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video42.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Ed Cox results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Framing Effect, and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 160 faulty-reasoning hits from 42.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (5,386 of 28,364 speakers). This Ed Cox is worse (more manipulative) than 81.00% of the peer group.
Ed Cox
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 42.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

81% percentile
025507510081.0% percentile
75.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos42.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

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%120%120%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 6.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 26.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos