Speaker summary
⁠65%1 analyzed article/video222 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nico Hoerner results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias and Begging the Question, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 40.3% saturation with 89.475 hits. Analysis detected 154.475 faulty-reasoning hits from 222 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 20.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠34% (18,844 of 28,364 speakers). This Nico Hoerner is better (less manipulative) than 66.40% of the peer group.
Nico Hoerner
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%
⁠34%Nico Hoerner (selected)21%
⁠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: 222
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

34% percentile
025507510033.6% percentile
20.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos222 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 40.3%40.3%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 10.3%10.3%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 12.0%12.0%

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%Optimism Bias: Speaker 40.3%, sitewide 6.0%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 12.0%, sitewide 3.7%Begging the Question: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 1.7%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos