Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video45.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These David Hayward results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Begging the Question, and Optimism Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 146.114 faulty-reasoning hits from 45.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 59.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (7,115 of 28,364 speakers). This David Hayward is worse (more manipulative) than 74.90% of the peer group.
David Hayward
Speaker details
Total words: 45.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

75% percentile
025507510074.9% percentile
59.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos45.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 80.8%80.8%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 76.2%76.2%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 19.2%19.2%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 21.5%21.5%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 80.8%, sitewide 4.6%Begging the Question: Speaker 76.2%, sitewide 1.7%Optimism Bias: Speaker 21.5%, sitewide 6.0%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 19.2%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos