Speaker summary
⁠71%1 analyzed article/video74.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Natalie Green results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Unattributed Quote, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 69.6% saturation with 58.5 hits. Analysis detected 181.5 faulty-reasoning hits from 74.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 29.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (14,912 of 28,364 speakers). This Natalie Green is better (less manipulative) than 52.60% of the peer group.
Natalie Green
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠48%Natalie Green (selected)30%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 74.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

47% percentile
025507510047.4% percentile
29.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos74.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 69.6%69.6%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 39.3%39.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 20.5%20.5%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 20.5%20.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 19.6%19.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 9.8%9.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Optimism Bias: Speaker 69.6%, sitewide 6.0%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 39.3%, sitewide 3.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 20.5%, sitewide 0.8%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 20.5%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 19.6%, sitewide 11.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 9.8%, sitewide 15.9%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos