Speaker summary
⁠94%1 analyzed article/video79 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jo Anne Simon results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Fundamental Attribution Error, and In-Group Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 63.4% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 281.796 faulty-reasoning hits from 79 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 40.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (11,830 of 28,364 speakers). This Jo Anne Simon is worse (more manipulative) than 58.30% of the peer group.
Jo Anne Simon
Speaker details
Total words: 79
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

58% percentile
025507510058.3% percentile
40.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos79 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 81.7%81.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 54.4%54.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 63.4%63.4%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 43.4%43.4%Tu QuoqueSitewide 0.2%Speaker 22.3%22.3%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 18.8%18.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 17.9%17.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 18.8%18.8%

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%Ad Hominem: Speaker 81.7%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 63.4%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 54.4%, sitewide 6.9%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 43.4%, sitewide 2.7%Tu Quoque: Speaker 22.3%, sitewide 0.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 18.8%, sitewide 19.2%Begging the Question: Speaker 18.8%, sitewide 1.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 17.9%, sitewide 7.5%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos