Speaker summary
⁠50%3 analyzed articles/videos3,844.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Noah Hurowitz results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Anecdotal, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 16.2% saturation with 701.824 hits. Analysis detected 5,357.63 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,844.667 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (28,156 of 28,364 speakers). This Noah Hurowitz is better (less manipulative) than 99.30% of the peer group.
Noah Hurowitz
Speaker details
Total words: 3,844.667
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

1% percentile
02550751000.7% percentile
3.1% BS Score3 analyzed videos3.8K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 1.9%1.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 7.3%7.3%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 16.2%16.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 3.0%3.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 0.3%0.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 12.8%12.8%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 9.4%9.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 3.0%3.0%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Speaker 0.5%0.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 3.4%3.4%

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 16.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 7.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 1.9%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 12.8%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 3.0%, sitewide 11.1%Anecdotal: Speaker 9.4%, sitewide 5.2%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 8.5%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 9.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Speaker 3.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 3.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Speaker 0.3%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 2.3%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 1.8%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 0.5%, sitewide 4.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 0.8%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 1.7%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 2.9%, sitewide 3.3%False Dilemma: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 1.5%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 1.4%, sitewide 2.7%Representativeness Heuristic: Speaker 2.7%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Speaker 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Speaker 0.2%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 1.5%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos