Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video42.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Hugh Grant results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Overconfidence Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 75% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 132 faulty-reasoning hits from 42.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 56.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (7,512 of 28,364 speakers). This Hugh Grant is worse (more manipulative) than 73.50% of the peer group.
Hugh Grant
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 42.667
Article count: 1
Authors
?

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

74% percentile
025507510073.5% percentile
56.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos42.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

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%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 2.7%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos