Speaker summary
⁠61%1 analyzed article/video38.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nathan Hale results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Anecdotal, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 75% saturation with 32.625 hits. Analysis detected 123.25 faulty-reasoning hits from 38.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠77% (6,761 of 28,364 speakers). This Nathan Hale is worse (more manipulative) than 76.20% of the peer group.
Nathan Hale
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%
⁠77%Nathan Hale (selected)63%
⁠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: 38.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

76% percentile
025507510076.2% percentile
62.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos38.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 75.0%75.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%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%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 15.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 0.0%Anecdotal: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 5.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos