Speaker summary
⁠94%1 analyzed article/video84 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jill Albertelli results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Begging the Question, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 66.1% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 320.375 faulty-reasoning hits from 84 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 45.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (10,765 of 28,364 speakers). This Jill Albertelli is worse (more manipulative) than 62.00% of the peer group.
Jill Albertelli
Speaker details
Total words: 84
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

62% percentile
025507510062.0% percentile
45.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos84 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 66.1%66.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 66.1%66.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 66.1%66.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 50.5%50.5%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 33.0%33.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 33.0%33.0%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 17.0%17.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 33.0%33.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 66.1%, sitewide 11.1%Begging the Question: Speaker 66.1%, sitewide 1.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 66.1%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Speaker 50.5%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 33.0%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 33.0%, sitewide 26.9%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 33.0%, sitewide 1.1%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 17.0%, sitewide 3.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos