Speaker summary
⁠90%1 analyzed article/video43.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Patrick Hendry results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 117.813 faulty-reasoning hits from 43.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 38.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (12,259 of 28,364 speakers). This Patrick Hendry is worse (more manipulative) than 56.80% of the peer group.
Patrick Hendry
Speaker details
Total words: 43.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

57% percentile
025507510056.8% percentile
38.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos43.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 70.8%70.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 20.8%20.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 29.2%29.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 20.8%20.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 70.8%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 29.2%, sitewide 11.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 20.8%, sitewide 19.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 20.8%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos