Speaker summary
⁠82%1 analyzed article/video123 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stephanie Seidmon results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 38.4% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 328.375 faulty-reasoning hits from 123 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 29.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (14,991 of 28,364 speakers). This Stephanie Seidmon is better (less manipulative) than 52.90% of the peer group.
Stephanie Seidmon
Speaker details
Total words: 123
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

47% percentile
025507510047.1% percentile
29.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos123 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 37.8%37.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 38.4%38.4%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 39.0%39.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 31.1%31.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 37.8%37.8%Sunk Cost EffectSitewide 0.3%Speaker 19.5%19.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 28.4%28.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 11.6%11.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 23.2%23.2%

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%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 39.0%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 38.4%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 37.8%, sitewide 15.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 37.8%, sitewide 0.0%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 31.1%, sitewide 7.5%Negativity Bias: Speaker 28.4%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 23.2%, sitewide 26.9%Sunk Cost Effect: Speaker 19.5%, sitewide 0.3%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 11.6%, sitewide 3.3%Status Quo BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos