Speaker summary
⁠59%1 analyzed article/video96 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Liz Ames results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Overconfidence Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 52.1% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 311.875 faulty-reasoning hits from 96 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 28.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠46% (15,541 of 28,364 speakers). This Liz Ames is better (less manipulative) than 54.80% of the peer group.
Liz Ames
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 96
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

45% percentile
025507510045.2% percentile
28.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos96 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 52.1%52.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 38.9%38.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 38.9%38.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 29.5%29.5%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 26.4%26.4%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 17.4%17.4%Sunk Cost EffectSitewide 0.3%Speaker 13.2%13.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 19.4%19.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 17.4%17.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 52.1%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 38.9%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 38.9%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Speaker 29.5%, sitewide 6.0%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 26.4%, sitewide 4.6%Halo Effect: Speaker 19.4%, sitewide 6.7%Negativity Bias: Speaker 17.4%, sitewide 19.2%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 17.4%, sitewide 3.7%Sunk Cost Effect: Speaker 13.2%, sitewide 0.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos