Speaker summary
⁠43%3 analyzed articles/videos198 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Friends of Big Bear Valley results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Authority, and Overconfidence Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 19% saturation with 37.562 hits. Analysis detected 208.562 faulty-reasoning hits from 198 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 11.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠14% (24,424 of 28,364 speakers). This Friends of Big Bear Valley is better (less manipulative) than 86.10% of the peer group.
Friends of Big Bear Valley
Speaker details
Total words: 198
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

14% percentile
025507510013.9% percentile
11.1% BS Score3 analyzed videos198 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–25%
0.0%5%10%15%20%25%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 12.4%12.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 19.0%19.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 7.9%7.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 5.6%5.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 12.4%12.4%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 7.9%7.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 11.6%11.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 12.4%12.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%5%5%10%10%15%15%20%20%25%25%Negativity Bias: Speaker 7.9%, sitewide 19.2%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 19.0%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 5.6%, sitewide 15.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 12.4%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 12.4%, sitewide 11.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 12.4%, sitewide 4.6%Optimism Bias: Speaker 11.6%, sitewide 6.0%Burden of Proof: Speaker 7.9%, sitewide 0.4%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos