Speaker summary
⁠79%2 analyzed articles/videos123.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Kristen Cianci results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 48.1% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 399.763 faulty-reasoning hits from 123.333 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 34% and a BS Rank of ⁠53% (13,461 of 28,364 speakers). This Kristen Cianci is worse (more manipulative) than 52.50% of the peer group.
Kristen Cianci
Speaker details
Total words: 123.333
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

53% percentile
025507510052.5% percentile
34.0% BS Score2 analyzed videos123.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 52.4%52.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 67.1%67.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 48.1%48.1%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Speaker 22.1%22.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 26.0%26.0%Genetic FallacySitewide 1.4%Speaker 12.0%12.0%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 10.1%10.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Negativity Bias: Speaker 67.1%, sitewide 19.2%Ad Hominem: Speaker 52.4%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 48.1%, sitewide 15.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 26.0%, sitewide 7.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Speaker 22.1%, sitewide 1.4%Genetic Fallacy: Speaker 12.0%, sitewide 1.4%Burden of Proof: Speaker 10.1%, sitewide 0.4%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos