Speaker summary
⁠37%1 analyzed article/video49.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nancy Hiemstra results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Confirmation Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 33 hits. Analysis detected 99 faulty-reasoning hits from 49.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (9,490 of 28,364 speakers). This Nancy Hiemstra is worse (more manipulative) than 66.50% of the peer group.
Nancy Hiemstra
Speaker details
Total words: 49.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

67% percentile
025507510066.5% percentile
50.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos49.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%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%Anecdotal: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 7.5%AnecdotalSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos