Speaker summary
⁠46%1 analyzed article/video65 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Andy Pham results contain 2 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 56.9% saturation with 37 hits. Analysis detected 65 faulty-reasoning hits from 65 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (8,379 of 28,364 speakers). This Andy Pham is worse (more manipulative) than 70.50% of the peer group.
Andy Pham
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠71%Andy Pham (selected)50%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 65
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

71% percentile
025507510070.5% percentile
50.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos65 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 56.9%56.9%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Speaker 43.1%43.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 56.9%, sitewide 3.3%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 43.1%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos