Speaker summary
93% 1 analyzed article/video 98 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Julia Curlee results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias , Anecdotal , and Negativity Bias , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 70.1% saturation with 96 hits . Analysis detected 388 faulty-reasoning hits from 98 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 47% and a BS Rank of 63% (10,135 of 26,980 speakers). This Julia Curlee is worse (more manipulative) than 62.40% of the peer group. Julia Curlee
Speaker details
Total words: 98
Article count: 1
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed speakers
62% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 62.4% percentile 47.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos98 analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–125%
0.0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Speaker 100.0% 100.0% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Speaker 62.7% 62.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Speaker 70.1% 70.1% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Speaker 43.1% 43.1% Pessimism Bias Sitewide 1.9% Speaker 27.0% 27.0% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Speaker 27.0% 27.0% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Speaker 13.9% 13.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Speaker 32.1% 32.1% 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% 120% 120% Confirmation Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 7.5% Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 70.1%, sitewide 15.9% Hasty Generalization: Speaker 62.7%, sitewide 8.1% Anecdotal: Speaker 43.1%, sitewide 5.2% Negativity Bias: Speaker 32.1%, sitewide 19.2% Availability Heuristic: Speaker 27.0%, sitewide 9.1% Pessimism Bias: Speaker 27.0%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect: Speaker 13.9%, sitewide 26.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide rate Speaker rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst