Speaker summary
⁠47%2 analyzed articles/videos38 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Project Hope results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 37.9% saturation with 22 hits. Analysis detected 156 faulty-reasoning hits from 38 analyzed words across 2 articles and videos, generating a BS Score of 33.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠53% (13,572 of 28,364 speakers). This Project Hope is worse (more manipulative) than 52.20% of the peer group.
Project Hope
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 38
Content count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

52% percentile
025507510052.2% percentile
33.6% BS Score2 analyzed videos38 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 37.9%37.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 37.9%37.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 37.9%37.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 31.0%31.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 31.0%31.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 31.0%31.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 31.0%31.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 31.0%31.0%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 37.9%, sitewide 11.1%Halo Effect: Speaker 37.9%, sitewide 6.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 37.9%, sitewide 3.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 19.2%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 4.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos