Speaker summary
⁠81%1 analyzed article/video82.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Ingrid Simonovic results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Framing Effect, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 85.1% saturation with 79.125 hits. Analysis detected 355.25 faulty-reasoning hits from 82.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 38.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (11,434 of 26,155 speakers). This Ingrid Simonovic is worse (more manipulative) than 56.30% of the peer group.
Ingrid Simonovic
Speaker details
Total words: 82.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

56% percentile
025507510056.3% percentile
38.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos82.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 85.1%85.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 59.7%59.7%Horn EffectSitewide 1.0%Speaker 40.3%40.3%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 40.3%40.3%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 29.8%29.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 29.8%29.8%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 20.2%20.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 20.2%20.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 30.2%30.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 29.8%29.8%

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%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 85.1%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 59.7%, sitewide 6.7%Ad Hominem: Speaker 40.3%, sitewide 2.2%Horn Effect: Speaker 40.3%, sitewide 1.0%Negativity Bias: Speaker 30.2%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 29.8%, sitewide 26.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 29.8%, sitewide 0.0%Optimism Bias: Speaker 29.8%, sitewide 6.0%In-Group Bias: Speaker 20.2%, sitewide 6.9%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 20.2%, sitewide 3.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos