Speaker summary
⁠85%1 analyzed article/video198 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stephanie Spiro results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 68.1% saturation with 134.779 hits. Analysis detected 590.853 faulty-reasoning hits from 198 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 35% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (13,168 of 28,364 speakers). This Stephanie Spiro is worse (more manipulative) than 53.60% of the peer group.
Stephanie Spiro
Speaker details
Total words: 198
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510053.6% percentile
35.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos198 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 68.1%68.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 55.1%55.1%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 21.8%21.8%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 21.8%21.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 34.7%34.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 14.4%14.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 29.1%29.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 68.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 55.1%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 34.7%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 29.1%, sitewide 19.2%Burden of Proof: Speaker 21.8%, sitewide 0.4%Slippery Slope: Speaker 21.8%, sitewide 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 14.4%, sitewide 3.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos