Speaker summary
⁠71%1 analyzed article/video48 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Tara Innes results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, In-Group Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 179.45 faulty-reasoning hits from 48 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 54% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (7,806 of 28,364 speakers). This Tara Innes is worse (more manipulative) than 72.50% of the peer group.
Tara Innes
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 48
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

73% percentile
025507510072.5% percentile
54.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos48 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 100.0%100.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 80.0%80.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 61.3%61.3%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 37.5%37.5%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 22.5%22.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 22.5%22.5%

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%Halo Effect: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 80.0%, sitewide 5.2%In-Group Bias: Speaker 61.3%, sitewide 6.9%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 37.5%, sitewide 3.7%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 22.5%, sitewide 8.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 22.5%, sitewide 4.6%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos