Speaker summary
⁠43%1 analyzed article/video129 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Matthew Zernhelt results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Indoctrination, and Appeal to Authority, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 25.1% saturation with 46 hits. Analysis detected 211 faulty-reasoning hits from 129 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 14.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠22% (22,380 of 28,364 speakers). This Matthew Zernhelt is better (less manipulative) than 78.90% of the peer group.
Matthew Zernhelt
Speaker details
Total words: 129
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

21% percentile
025507510021.1% percentile
14.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos129 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 21.9%21.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 25.1%25.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 21.9%21.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 9.3%9.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 18.0%18.0%Blind-Spot BiasSitewide 0.2%Speaker 6.0%6.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 9.8%9.8%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 3.3%3.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 25.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anecdotal: Speaker 21.9%, sitewide 5.2%Indoctrination: Speaker 21.9%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 18.0%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 9.8%, sitewide 7.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 9.3%, sitewide 0.8%Blind-Spot Bias: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 0.2%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 3.3%, sitewide 1.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos