Speaker summary
⁠88%1 analyzed article/video94 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Spring McParlin-Jones results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 144 hits. Analysis detected 464 faulty-reasoning hits from 94 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 57.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (7,353 of 28,364 speakers). This Spring McParlin-Jones is worse (more manipulative) than 74.10% of the peer group.
Spring McParlin-Jones
Speaker details
Total words: 94
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

74% percentile
025507510074.1% percentile
57.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos94 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 30.6%30.6%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 30.6%30.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 30.6%30.6%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 19.4%19.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%Ad Hominem: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 2.7%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 0.8%In-Group Bias: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 6.9%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 3.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 19.4%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos