Speaker summary
⁠57%3 analyzed articles/videos369.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nathan Proctor results contain 21 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Loss Aversion, and Appeal to Emotion, with Quote-first Misdirection as the most egregious example at 19% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 754.005 faulty-reasoning hits from 369.333 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 8.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠8% (26,088 of 28,364 speakers). This Nathan Proctor is better (less manipulative) than 92.00% of the peer group.
Nathan Proctor
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%
⁠8%Nathan Proctor (selected)9%
⁠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: 369.333
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

8% percentile
02550751008.0% percentile
8.3% BS Score3 analyzed videos369.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 5.8%5.8%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 19.0%19.0%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 19.2%19.2%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 12.9%12.9%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 11.8%11.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 4.0%4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 9.7%9.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 11.5%11.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 6.8%6.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 10.3%10.3%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 5.8%, sitewide 26.9%Loss Aversion: Speaker 19.2%, sitewide 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 19.0%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 13.3%, sitewide 15.9%False Dilemma: Speaker 12.9%, sitewide 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 11.8%, sitewide 2.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 11.5%, sitewide 5.2%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 11.5%, sitewide 9.1%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 4.0%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 6.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 9.7%, sitewide 3.3%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 5.0%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 6.2%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Speaker 5.6%, sitewide 6.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 6.8%, sitewide 0.8%Bandwagon: Speaker 5.6%, sitewide 2.2%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 4.0%, sitewide 5.3%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 4.2%, sitewide 3.7%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 3.7%, sitewide 1.1%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 3.3%, sitewide 1.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 2.0%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos