Speaker summary
⁠39%1 analyzed article/video66.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Melissa Dieterich results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 40.3% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 236 faulty-reasoning hits from 66.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 28.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠46% (15,475 of 28,364 speakers). This Melissa Dieterich is better (less manipulative) than 54.60% of the peer group.
Melissa Dieterich
Speaker details
Total words: 66.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

45% percentile
025507510045.4% percentile
28.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos66.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 40.3%40.3%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 39.5%39.5%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 28.6%28.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 28.6%28.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 39.5%39.5%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 10.9%10.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 10.9%10.9%

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%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 40.3%, sitewide 0.8%Ad Hominem: Speaker 39.5%, sitewide 2.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 39.5%, sitewide 19.2%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 28.6%, sitewide 5.3%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 28.6%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 10.9%, sitewide 15.9%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 10.9%, sitewide 3.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos