Speaker summary
⁠51%2 analyzed articles/videos139.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Harvard University results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 46.7% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 166.03 faulty-reasoning hits from 139.5 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 25.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (16,711 of 28,364 speakers). This Harvard University is better (less manipulative) than 58.90% of the peer group.
Harvard University
Speaker details
Total words: 139.5
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

41% percentile
025507510041.1% percentile
25.3% BS Score2 analyzed videos139.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 46.8%46.8%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 24.9%24.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 13.0%13.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 16.5%16.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 46.8%, sitewide 11.1%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 24.9%, sitewide 3.7%Negativity Bias: Speaker 16.5%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 13.0%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos