Speaker summary
⁠73%1 analyzed article/video100 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Hananeh Mousavi results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Negativity Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 61.3% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 231.75 faulty-reasoning hits from 100 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 21.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (18,320 of 28,364 speakers). This Hananeh Mousavi is better (less manipulative) than 64.60% of the peer group.
Hananeh Mousavi
Speaker details
Total words: 100
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

35% percentile
025507510035.4% percentile
21.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos100 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 57.3%57.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 61.3%61.3%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 4.7%4.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 23.3%23.3%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Speaker 10.7%10.7%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 8.0%8.0%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 6.0%6.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 4.7%4.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 21.3%21.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 61.3%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 57.3%, sitewide 6.7%Framing Effect: Speaker 4.7%, sitewide 26.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 23.3%, sitewide 6.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 21.3%, sitewide 19.2%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 10.7%, sitewide 1.4%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 8.0%, sitewide 1.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 4.7%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos