Speaker summary
⁠71%4 analyzed articles/videos258 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Phil Scott results contain 11 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Begging the Question, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 26.5% saturation with 68.259 hits. Analysis detected 283.064 faulty-reasoning hits from 258 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 8.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠9% (25,943 of 28,364 speakers). This Phil Scott is better (less manipulative) than 91.50% of the peer group.
Phil Scott
Speaker details

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

9% percentile
02550751008.5% percentile
8.6% BS Score4 analyzed videos258 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 26.5%26.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 13.5%13.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 3.8%3.8%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 6.8%6.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 11.0%11.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 11.9%11.9%Primacy EffectSitewide 0.9%Speaker 3.8%3.8%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 3.8%3.8%No True ScotsmanSitewide 0.1%Speaker 2.7%2.7%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 4.3%4.3%

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 13.5%, sitewide 26.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 26.5%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 11.9%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Speaker 11.0%, sitewide 6.0%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 6.8%, sitewide 8.1%Begging the Question: Speaker 6.8%, sitewide 1.7%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 4.3%, sitewide 1.9%Primacy Effect: Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 0.9%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 1.1%No True Scotsman: Speaker 2.7%, sitewide 0.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos