Speaker summary
⁠78%1 analyzed article/video73 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Karen Spilka results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 260 faulty-reasoning hits from 73 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 51.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (8,119 of 28,364 speakers). This Karen Spilka is worse (more manipulative) than 71.40% of the peer group.
Karen Spilka
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 73
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

71% percentile
025507510071.4% percentile
51.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos73 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 64.0%64.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 43.9%43.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 36.0%36.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 36.0%36.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 28.1%28.1%

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%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 64.0%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Speaker 43.9%, sitewide 6.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 36.0%, sitewide 0.8%Negativity Bias: Speaker 36.0%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 28.1%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos