Speaker summary
⁠32%2 analyzed articles/videos186.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Neil MacGregor results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Unattributed Quote, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 31.9% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 325 faulty-reasoning hits from 186.333 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 11% and a BS Rank of ⁠14% (24,507 of 28,364 speakers). This Neil MacGregor is better (less manipulative) than 86.40% of the peer group.
Neil MacGregor
Speaker details
Total words: 186.333
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

14% percentile
025507510013.6% percentile
11.0% BS Score2 analyzed videos186.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 11.9%11.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 7.8%7.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 4.8%4.8%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 10.5%10.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 31.9%31.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 10.5%10.5%Blind-Spot BiasSitewide 0.2%Speaker 2.0%2.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 9.2%9.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 8.1%8.1%

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 31.9%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 7.8%, sitewide 15.9%Begging the Question: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 1.7%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 11.9%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 10.5%, sitewide 5.3%Halo Effect: Speaker 10.5%, sitewide 6.7%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 9.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 8.1%, sitewide 7.5%Blind-Spot Bias: Speaker 2.0%, sitewide 0.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos