Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video32 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jed Schugerman results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Anecdotal, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 120 faulty-reasoning hits from 32 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (5,436 of 28,364 speakers). This Jed Schugerman is worse (more manipulative) than 80.80% of the peer group.
Jed Schugerman
Speaker details
Total words: 32
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

81% percentile
025507510080.8% percentile
75.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos32 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Ad Hominem: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 2.2%Anecdotal: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 5.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos