Speaker summary
⁠71%1 analyzed article/video70.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Emily Olsen results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Hasty Generalization, and Representativeness Heuristic, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 70.2% saturation with 33 hits. Analysis detected 160 faulty-reasoning hits from 70.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 29.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (15,087 of 28,364 speakers). This Emily Olsen is better (less manipulative) than 53.20% of the peer group.
Emily Olsen
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 70.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

47% percentile
025507510046.8% percentile
29.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos70.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 70.2%70.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 35.1%35.1%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Speaker 35.1%35.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 35.1%35.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 11.7%11.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 14.9%14.9%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 3.2%3.2%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%In-Group Bias: Speaker 70.2%, sitewide 6.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 35.1%, sitewide 0.8%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 35.1%, sitewide 8.1%Representativeness Heuristic: Speaker 35.1%, sitewide 1.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 14.9%, sitewide 6.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 11.7%, sitewide 3.3%Anecdotal: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 5.2%In-Group BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos