Speaker summary
⁠69%3 analyzed articles/videos105.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Rae Huang results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 51.6% saturation with 54.348 hits. Analysis detected 213.348 faulty-reasoning hits from 105.333 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 21.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (18,404 of 28,364 speakers). This Rae Huang is better (less manipulative) than 64.90% of the peer group.
Rae Huang
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

35% percentile
025507510035.1% percentile
21.7% BS Score3 analyzed videos105.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 51.6%51.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 17.1%17.1%No True ScotsmanSitewide 0.1%Speaker 15.2%15.2%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 17.1%17.1%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 17.1%17.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 17.1%17.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 17.1%17.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Ad Hominem: Speaker 51.6%, sitewide 2.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 17.1%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 17.1%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 17.1%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 17.1%, sitewide 5.3%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 17.1%, sitewide 3.7%No True Scotsman: Speaker 15.2%, sitewide 0.1%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos