Speaker summary
⁠75%1 analyzed article/video41.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nancy Hogshead results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Anchoring Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 46.5 hits. Analysis detected 186 faulty-reasoning hits from 41.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 70% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (5,862 of 28,364 speakers). This Nancy Hogshead is worse (more manipulative) than 79.30% of the peer group.
Nancy Hogshead
Speaker details
Total words: 41.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

79% percentile
025507510079.3% percentile
70.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos41.3 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%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%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%80%80%100%100%120%120%Framing Effect: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 8.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 4.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 15.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos