Speaker summary
⁠83%1 analyzed article/video107 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jeffrey Thielman results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.9% saturation with 61 hits. Analysis detected 303.536 faulty-reasoning hits from 107 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 30.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (14,696 of 28,364 speakers). This Jeffrey Thielman is better (less manipulative) than 51.80% of the peer group.
Jeffrey Thielman
Speaker details
Total words: 107
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

48% percentile
025507510048.2% percentile
30.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos107 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 47.5%47.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 55.6%55.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 39.9%39.9%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 20.9%20.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 18.9%18.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 20.9%20.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 20.9%20.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 18.9%18.9%

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 Emotion: Speaker 55.6%, sitewide 15.9%False Dilemma: Speaker 47.5%, sitewide 1.5%Negativity Bias: Speaker 39.9%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 18.9%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 20.9%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 20.9%, sitewide 8.1%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 20.9%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 18.9%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos