Speaker summary
⁠70%2 analyzed articles/videos128 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Pam Williams results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, False Dilemma, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 75% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 396 faulty-reasoning hits from 128 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 37.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (11,927 of 26,848 speakers). This Pam Williams is worse (more manipulative) than 55.60% of the peer group.
Pam Williams
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 128
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

56% percentile
025507510055.6% percentile
37.5% BS Score2 analyzed videos128 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Politically Left Leaning …Sitewide 2.0%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 25.0%25.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 11.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 26.9%False Dilemma: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos