Speaker summary
⁠78%2 analyzed articles/videos84 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jim Farley results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Optimism Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 76.9% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 402.404 faulty-reasoning hits from 84 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 52.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (7,957 of 28,364 speakers). This Jim Farley is worse (more manipulative) than 71.90% of the peer group.
Jim Farley
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 84
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

72% percentile
025507510071.9% percentile
52.6% BS Score2 analyzed videos84 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 76.9%76.9%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 76.9%76.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 62.5%62.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 50.5%50.5%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Speaker 38.5%38.5%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 38.5%38.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 38.5%38.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 38.5%38.5%

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%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 76.9%, sitewide 3.3%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 76.9%, sitewide 3.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 62.5%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Speaker 50.5%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Speaker 38.5%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 38.5%, sitewide 11.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Speaker 38.5%, sitewide 0.5%Recency Bias: Speaker 38.5%, sitewide 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos