Speaker summary
⁠79%1 analyzed article/video61.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Paul Hill results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 164 faulty-reasoning hits from 61.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠77% (6,775 of 28,364 speakers). This Paul Hill is worse (more manipulative) than 76.10% of the peer group.
Paul Hill
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 61.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

76% percentile
025507510076.1% percentile
62.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos61.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 100.0%100.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

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%120%120%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 7.5%Anecdotal: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos