Speaker summary
⁠85%1 analyzed article/video77 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Joseph Ford Cotto results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Halo Effect, and Hindsight Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 96.1% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 252 faulty-reasoning hits from 77 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 54.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (7,718 of 28,364 speakers). This Joseph Ford Cotto is worse (more manipulative) than 72.80% of the peer group.
Joseph Ford Cotto
Speaker details
Total words: 77
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

73% percentile
025507510072.8% percentile
54.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos77 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Speaker 96.1%96.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 96.1%96.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 59.7%59.7%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Speaker 29.9%29.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 29.9%29.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 15.6%15.6%

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%120%120%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 96.1%, sitewide 11.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Speaker 96.1%, sitewide 0.5%Halo Effect: Speaker 59.7%, sitewide 6.7%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 29.9%, sitewide 1.4%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 29.9%, sitewide 4.6%Framing Effect: Speaker 15.6%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos