Speaker summary
⁠57%1 analyzed article/video76 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Leo Latham results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Optimism Bias, and Representativeness Heuristic, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 59.4% saturation with 53.438 hits. Analysis detected 181.438 faulty-reasoning hits from 76 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 26.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠43% (16,400 of 28,364 speakers). This Leo Latham is better (less manipulative) than 57.80% of the peer group.
Leo Latham
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 76
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

42% percentile
025507510042.2% percentile
26.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos76 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 59.4%59.4%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 8.3%8.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%In-Group Bias: Speaker 59.4%, sitewide 6.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 8.1%Optimism Bias: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 6.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 1.9%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 3.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 8.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos