Speaker summary
⁠50%1 analyzed article/video141.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Julia Curtis results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 39.1% saturation with 62.798 hits. Analysis detected 164.479 faulty-reasoning hits from 141.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 22.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠37% (17,531 of 27,564 speakers). This Julia Curtis is better (less manipulative) than 63.60% of the peer group.
Julia Curtis
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 141.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

36% percentile
025507510036.4% percentile
22.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos141.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 39.1%39.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 22.0%22.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 17.9%17.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 11.5%11.5%

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%Halo Effect: Speaker 39.1%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 22.0%, sitewide 5.2%Optimism Bias: Speaker 17.9%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 11.5%, sitewide 15.9%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos