Speaker summary
⁠32%1 analyzed article/video246.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Natalie Arrow results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Confirmation Bias, and Hindsight Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 31.9% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 278.74 faulty-reasoning hits from 246.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 19.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠31% (19,624 of 28,364 speakers). This Natalie Arrow is better (less manipulative) than 69.20% of the peer group.
Natalie Arrow
Speaker details
Total words: 246.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

31% percentile
025507510030.8% percentile
19.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos246.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 22.3%22.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 31.9%31.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 22.3%22.3%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Speaker 11.4%11.4%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 8.7%8.7%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 31.9%, sitewide 11.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 22.3%, sitewide 0.8%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 22.3%, sitewide 7.5%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 11.4%, sitewide 1.4%Indoctrination: Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos