Speaker summary
⁠82%1 analyzed article/video82.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Neil Thomas results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Framing Effect, and Begging the Question, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 76.6% saturation with 71.25 hits. Analysis detected 335.375 faulty-reasoning hits from 82.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 34.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (13,258 of 28,364 speakers). This Neil Thomas is worse (more manipulative) than 53.30% of the peer group.
Neil Thomas
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 82.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

53% percentile
025507510053.3% percentile
34.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos82.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 76.6%76.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 48.4%48.4%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Speaker 26.6%26.6%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 26.6%26.6%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 23.4%23.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 23.4%23.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 23.4%23.4%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 39.9%39.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 23.4%23.4%

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 Authority: Speaker 76.6%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 48.4%, sitewide 8.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 39.9%, sitewide 26.9%Begging the Question: Speaker 26.6%, sitewide 1.7%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 26.6%, sitewide 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 23.4%, sitewide 0.8%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 23.4%, sitewide 5.3%Burden of Proof: Speaker 23.4%, sitewide 0.4%Negativity Bias: Speaker 23.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos