Speaker summary
⁠71%1 analyzed article/video50.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stephanie Coontz results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 55.1% saturation with 54 hits. Analysis detected 162 faulty-reasoning hits from 50.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 47.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (10,472 of 28,364 speakers). This Stephanie Coontz is worse (more manipulative) than 63.10% of the peer group.
Stephanie Coontz
Speaker details
Total words: 50.667
Article count: 1
Authors
?

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

63% percentile
025507510063.1% percentile
47.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos50.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 55.1%55.1%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 27.6%27.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 27.6%27.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 27.6%27.6%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 26.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 55.1%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 27.6%, sitewide 11.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 27.6%, sitewide 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 27.6%, sitewide 3.3%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos