Speaker summary
⁠72%1 analyzed article/video114 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jennifer Eden results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Halo Effect, and In-Group Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 44.7% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 265 faulty-reasoning hits from 114 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 29.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (15,203 of 28,364 speakers). This Jennifer Eden is better (less manipulative) than 53.60% of the peer group.
Jennifer Eden
Speaker details
Total words: 114
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

46% percentile
025507510046.4% percentile
29.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos114 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 44.7%44.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 35.1%35.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 35.1%35.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 35.1%35.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 20.2%20.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 24.6%24.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 33.3%33.3%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 4.4%4.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Optimism Bias: Speaker 44.7%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 35.1%, sitewide 11.1%Halo Effect: Speaker 35.1%, sitewide 6.7%In-Group Bias: Speaker 35.1%, sitewide 6.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 33.3%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 24.6%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 20.2%, sitewide 8.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 4.4%, sitewide 4.6%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos