Speaker summary
⁠58%1 analyzed article/video140 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jeremy Mack results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Halo Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 88.6% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 515 faulty-reasoning hits from 140 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 32.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (13,199 of 26,548 speakers). This Jeremy Mack is worse (more manipulative) than 50.30% of the peer group.
Jeremy Mack
Speaker details
Total words: 140
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

50% percentile
025507510050.3% percentile
32.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos140 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 88.6%88.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 53.3%53.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 40.0%40.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 26.7%26.7%Blind-Spot BiasSitewide 0.2%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 32.4%32.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 26.7%26.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 5.7%5.7%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 88.6%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 53.3%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Speaker 40.0%, sitewide 6.7%Negativity Bias: Speaker 32.4%, sitewide 19.2%Anecdotal: Speaker 26.7%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 26.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 5.3%Blind-Spot Bias: Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 5.7%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos