Speaker summary
⁠78%1 analyzed article/video2,189.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Phil Stanford results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Overconfidence Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 20.6% saturation with 450.096 hits. Analysis detected 3,393.904 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,189.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠2% (28,024 of 28,364 speakers). This Phil Stanford is better (less manipulative) than 98.80% of the peer group.
Phil Stanford
Speaker details
Total words: 2,189.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

1% percentile
02550751001.2% percentile
3.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos2.2K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 1.4%1.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 20.6%20.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 9.6%9.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 15.8%15.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 2.6%2.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 9.6%9.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 5.1%5.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 0.5%0.5%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 9.9%9.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 1.7%1.7%

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 1.4%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 20.6%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 9.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 9.6%, sitewide 15.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 15.8%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 5.1%, sitewide 11.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 9.9%, sitewide 4.6%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 9.9%, sitewide 5.3%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 7.3%, sitewide 3.3%In-Group Bias: Speaker 1.7%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 3.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Speaker 0.5%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Speaker 3.5%, sitewide 5.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 4.1%, sitewide 3.1%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 3.0%, sitewide 3.7%Indoctrination: Speaker 3.1%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 2.4%, sitewide 2.7%Begging the Question: Speaker 2.7%, sitewide 1.7%Recency Bias: Speaker 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Composition/Division: Speaker 2.7%, sitewide 0.2%Ad Hominem: Speaker 2.5%, sitewide 2.2%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 2.5%, sitewide 1.4%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 1.2%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos