Speaker summary
⁠33%4 analyzed articles/videos253.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jordan Wood results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 269.503 faulty-reasoning hits from 253.333 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 13.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠19% (23,044 of 28,364 speakers). This Jordan Wood is better (less manipulative) than 81.20% of the peer group.
Jordan Wood
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

19% percentile
025507510018.8% percentile
13.4% BS Score4 analyzed videos253.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 12.9%12.9%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 15.2%15.2%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 9.8%9.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 15.2%15.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 9.2%9.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 9.2%9.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 16.7%16.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 19.0%19.0%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 12.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 19.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 16.7%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 15.2%, sitewide 8.1%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 15.2%, sitewide 3.7%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 9.8%, sitewide 1.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 9.2%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 9.2%, sitewide 3.3%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos