Speaker summary
⁠28%3 analyzed articles/videos283 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Gerald Ford results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 11.4% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 287 faulty-reasoning hits from 283 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 6.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠5% (27,177 of 28,364 speakers). This Gerald Ford is better (less manipulative) than 95.80% of the peer group.
Gerald Ford
Speaker details
Total words: 283
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

4% percentile
02550751004.2% percentile
6.2% BS Score3 analyzed videos283 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 4.1%4.1%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 7.3%7.3%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 6.0%6.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 11.4%11.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 8.6%8.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 4.1%4.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 8.6%8.6%Appeal to NatureSitewide 0.2%Speaker 2.8%2.8%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 6.0%6.0%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 2.8%2.8%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 4.1%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 11.4%, sitewide 15.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 8.6%, sitewide 6.0%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 8.6%, sitewide 4.6%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 7.3%, sitewide 1.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 4.1%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 5.2%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to Nature: Speaker 2.8%, sitewide 0.2%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 2.8%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos