Speaker summary
⁠40%2 analyzed articles/videos147.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Loretta Valentine results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Halo Effect, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 27.9% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 205.892 faulty-reasoning hits from 147.333 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 11.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠15% (24,162 of 28,364 speakers). This Loretta Valentine is better (less manipulative) than 85.20% of the peer group.
Loretta Valentine
Speaker details
Total words: 147.333
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

15% percentile
025507510014.8% percentile
11.6% BS Score2 analyzed videos147.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 27.9%27.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 3.9%3.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 18.3%18.3%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 9.1%9.1%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 10.6%10.6%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 9.1%9.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 9.1%9.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 12.1%12.1%Appeal to NatureSitewide 0.2%Speaker 3.9%3.9%

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%Anecdotal: Speaker 27.9%, sitewide 5.2%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 18.3%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 3.9%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 12.1%, sitewide 6.7%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 10.6%, sitewide 3.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 9.1%, sitewide 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 9.1%, sitewide 3.3%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 9.1%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to Nature: Speaker 3.9%, sitewide 0.2%AnecdotalSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos