Speaker summary
⁠69%1 analyzed article/video43 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Heidi Vonblum results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Begging the Question, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 69.7% saturation with 31.73 hits. Analysis detected 114.73 faulty-reasoning hits from 43 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 43.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (11,190 of 28,364 speakers). This Heidi Vonblum is worse (more manipulative) than 60.60% of the peer group.
Heidi Vonblum
Speaker details
Total words: 43
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

61% percentile
025507510060.6% percentile
43.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos43 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 69.7%69.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 30.3%30.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 19.7%19.7%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 19.7%19.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 19.7%19.7%

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%Begging the Question: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 1.7%Framing Effect: Speaker 69.7%, sitewide 26.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 30.3%, sitewide 7.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 19.7%, sitewide 0.8%Negativity Bias: Speaker 19.7%, sitewide 19.2%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 19.7%, sitewide 1.1%Begging the QuestionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos