Speaker summary
⁠75%2 analyzed articles/videos107.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jason Cox results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Confirmation Bias, and Halo Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 66.6% saturation with 77.564 hits. Analysis detected 196.038 faulty-reasoning hits from 107.333 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 29.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (19,723 of 37,957 speakers). This Jason Cox is better (less manipulative) than 52.00% of the peer group.
Jason Cox
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%MARGARET BRENNAN1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠48%Jason Cox (selected)30%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 107.333
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

48% percentile
025507510048.0% percentile
29.1% BS Score2 analyzed videos107.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 66.6%66.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 42.5%42.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 14.7%14.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 12.1%12.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 9.5%9.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Optimism Bias: Speaker 66.6%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 42.5%, sitewide 15.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 14.7%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Speaker 12.1%, sitewide 6.7%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 9.5%, sitewide 4.6%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos