Speaker summary
⁠84%1 analyzed article/video108.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stephanie Chang results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Begging the Question, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 53.2% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 376.192 faulty-reasoning hits from 108.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 40.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (11,816 of 28,364 speakers). This Stephanie Chang is worse (more manipulative) than 58.30% of the peer group.
Stephanie Chang
Speaker details
Total words: 108.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

58% percentile
025507510058.3% percentile
40.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos108.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 65.1%65.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 53.3%53.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 40.9%40.9%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 34.9%34.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 59.2%59.2%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 26.6%26.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 26.6%26.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 14.3%14.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Begging the Question: Speaker 65.1%, sitewide 1.7%Framing Effect: Speaker 59.2%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 53.3%, sitewide 15.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 40.9%, sitewide 6.0%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 34.9%, sitewide 1.9%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 26.6%, sitewide 4.6%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 26.6%, sitewide 1.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 14.3%, sitewide 7.5%Begging the QuestionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos