Speaker summary
⁠72%1 analyzed article/video92 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Lindsey Weatherby results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Self-Serving Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 56.5% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 360.75 faulty-reasoning hits from 92 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 37.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (12,636 of 28,364 speakers). This Lindsey Weatherby is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the peer group.
Lindsey Weatherby
Speaker details
Total words: 92
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

56% percentile
025507510055.5% percentile
37.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos92 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 56.5%56.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 38.4%38.4%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 38.4%38.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 39.1%39.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 34.8%34.8%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 34.1%34.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 34.8%34.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 21.0%21.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 56.5%, sitewide 15.9%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 39.1%, sitewide 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 38.4%, sitewide 0.8%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 38.4%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 34.8%, sitewide 3.3%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 34.8%, sitewide 7.5%Anecdotal: Speaker 34.1%, sitewide 5.2%Halo Effect: Speaker 21.0%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos