Speaker summary
⁠85%2 analyzed articles/videos154.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Heather Tanana results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, In-Group Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Fundamental Attribution Error as the most egregious example at 75.4% saturation with 131.25 hits. Analysis detected 576.25 faulty-reasoning hits from 154.667 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 39.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (12,060 of 28,364 speakers). This Heather Tanana is worse (more manipulative) than 57.50% of the peer group.
Heather Tanana
Speaker details
Total words: 154.667
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

58% percentile
025507510057.5% percentile
39.2% BS Score2 analyzed videos154.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 75.4%75.4%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 64.7%64.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 64.7%64.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 43.1%43.1%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 6.9%6.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 12.1%12.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 21.6%21.6%

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%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 75.4%, sitewide 2.7%Ad Hominem: Speaker 64.7%, sitewide 2.2%In-Group Bias: Speaker 64.7%, sitewide 6.9%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 43.1%, sitewide 5.3%Framing Effect: Speaker 6.9%, sitewide 26.9%Begging the Question: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 1.7%Negativity Bias: Speaker 21.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 12.1%, sitewide 15.9%Fundamental Attribution ErrorSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos