Speaker summary
⁠48%1 analyzed article/video58.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stephen Fox results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Personal Incredulity, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 47.9% saturation with 34 hits. Analysis detected 155.587 faulty-reasoning hits from 58.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 24.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠40% (17,044 of 28,364 speakers). This Stephen Fox is better (less manipulative) than 60.10% of the peer group.
Stephen Fox
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 58.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

40% percentile
025507510039.9% percentile
24.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos58.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 47.9%47.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 45.1%45.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 47.9%47.9%Personal IncredulitySitewide 0.2%Speaker 26.8%26.8%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 18.3%18.3%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Speaker 9.6%9.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 7.0%7.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 14.0%14.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 7.0%7.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Anecdotal: Speaker 47.9%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 47.9%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 45.1%, sitewide 7.5%Personal Incredulity: Speaker 26.8%, sitewide 0.2%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 18.3%, sitewide 1.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 14.0%, sitewide 8.1%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 9.6%, sitewide 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 7.0%, sitewide 0.8%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 7.0%, sitewide 4.6%AnecdotalSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos