Speaker summary
⁠65%1 analyzed article/video92 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Emily Brandt results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Framing Effect, and Pessimism Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 39.4% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 156.5 faulty-reasoning hits from 92 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 29.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (15,058 of 28,364 speakers). This Emily Brandt is better (less manipulative) than 53.10% of the peer group.
Emily Brandt
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 92
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

47% percentile
025507510046.9% percentile
29.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos92 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 47.0%47.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 39.4%39.4%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 16.7%16.7%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 10.6%10.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 33.3%33.3%

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%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 47.0%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 39.4%, sitewide 3.3%Framing Effect: Speaker 33.3%, sitewide 26.9%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 16.7%, sitewide 1.9%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 10.6%, sitewide 2.2%Self-Serving BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos