Speaker summary
⁠61%1 analyzed article/video40.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Melinda Forstey results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 67.6% saturation with 28.716 hits. Analysis detected 102.716 faulty-reasoning hits from 40.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 33.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (13,606 of 28,364 speakers). This Melinda Forstey is worse (more manipulative) than 52.00% of the peer group.
Melinda Forstey
Speaker details
Total words: 40.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

52% percentile
025507510052.0% percentile
33.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos40.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 67.6%67.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 35.1%35.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 35.1%35.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 14.9%14.9%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 14.9%14.9%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 67.6%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 35.1%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 35.1%, sitewide 7.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 14.9%, sitewide 0.8%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 14.9%, sitewide 1.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos