Speaker summary
⁠52%1 analyzed article/video294 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Pam Kohlmeier results contain 14 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Authority, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 21.3% saturation with 68.662 hits. Analysis detected 441.434 faulty-reasoning hits from 294 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 8% and a BS Rank of ⁠9% (38,568 of 42,079 speakers). This Pam Kohlmeier is better (less manipulative) than 91.70% of the peer group.
Pam Kohlmeier
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠0%MARGARET BRENNAN1%
⁠9%Pam Kohlmeier (selected)8%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 294
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

8% percentile
02550751008.3% percentile
8.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos294 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 5.7%5.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 2.5%2.5%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 11.8%11.8%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 12.5%12.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 7.1%7.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 11.3%11.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 21.3%21.3%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 7.1%7.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 2.9%2.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 4.4%4.4%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 5.7%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 21.3%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 2.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 13.0%, sitewide 11.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 12.5%, sitewide 4.6%False Dilemma: Speaker 11.8%, sitewide 1.5%Anecdotal: Speaker 11.3%, sitewide 5.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 7.1%, sitewide 0.8%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 7.1%, sitewide 2.2%Halo Effect: Speaker 4.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Speaker 2.9%, sitewide 6.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 4.6%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Speaker 4.6%, sitewide 2.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Speaker 2.9%, sitewide 2.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos