Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video56 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jeff Strong results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 66.1% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 286.976 faulty-reasoning hits from 56 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 32% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (14,192 of 28,364 speakers). This Jeff Strong is worse (more manipulative) than 50.00% of the peer group.
Jeff Strong
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 56
Article count: 1
Authors
?

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

50% percentile
025507510050.0% percentile
32.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos56 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 66.1%66.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 58.9%58.9%Primacy EffectSitewide 0.9%Speaker 22.6%22.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 35.5%35.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 22.6%22.6%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Speaker 16.1%16.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 17.7%17.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 16.1%16.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 66.1%, sitewide 11.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 58.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 35.5%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 16.1%, sitewide 26.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 22.6%, sitewide 6.7%Primacy Effect: Speaker 22.6%, sitewide 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 17.7%, sitewide 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Speaker 16.1%, sitewide 0.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos