Speaker summary
⁠80%2 analyzed articles/videos188.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These James Fishback results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Straw Man, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 53.2% saturation with 142.474 hits. Analysis detected 496.709 faulty-reasoning hits from 188.667 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 32.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (13,964 of 28,364 speakers). This James Fishback is worse (more manipulative) than 50.80% of the peer group.
James Fishback
Speaker details
Total words: 188.667
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

51% percentile
025507510050.8% percentile
32.7% BS Score2 analyzed videos188.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Speaker 70.6%70.6%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 53.2%53.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 5.9%5.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 5.9%5.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 11.9%11.9%No True ScotsmanSitewide 0.1%Speaker 3.8%3.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 10.3%10.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 8.1%Straw Man: Speaker 70.6%, sitewide 0.9%Ad Hominem: Speaker 53.2%, sitewide 2.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 5.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 5.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 11.9%, sitewide 15.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 7.5%No True Scotsman: Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 0.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos