Speaker summary
⁠80%1 analyzed article/video87 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Center for Election Innovation and Research results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 59.5% saturation with 51.75 hits. Analysis detected 181.75 faulty-reasoning hits from 87 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 34.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠53% (13,348 of 28,364 speakers). This Center for Election Innovation and Research is worse (more manipulative) than 52.90% of the peer group.
Center for Election Innovation and Research
Speaker details
Total words: 87
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

53% percentile
025507510052.9% percentile
34.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos87 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 59.5%59.5%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 31.0%31.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 31.0%31.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 19.0%19.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 31.0%31.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 59.5%, sitewide 7.5%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 19.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 19.0%, sitewide 3.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos