Speaker summary
⁠71%1 analyzed article/video74 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Hana Cregar results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 64.6% saturation with 58.502 hits. Analysis detected 298.004 faulty-reasoning hits from 74 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (12,689 of 28,364 speakers). This Hana Cregar is worse (more manipulative) than 55.30% of the peer group.
Hana Cregar
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 74
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

55% percentile
025507510055.3% percentile
36.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos74 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 64.6%64.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 64.6%64.6%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 29.3%29.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 29.3%29.3%Politically Left Leaning …Sitewide 2.0%Speaker 20.7%20.7%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 20.7%20.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 29.3%29.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Ad Hominem: Speaker 64.6%, sitewide 2.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 64.6%, sitewide 26.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 29.3%, sitewide 7.5%Negativity Bias: Speaker 29.3%, sitewide 19.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 29.3%, sitewide 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Speaker 20.7%, sitewide 2.0%Recency Bias: Speaker 20.7%, sitewide 2.7%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos