Speaker summary
⁠89%1 analyzed article/video72 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Roman Gushchin results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 252 faulty-reasoning hits from 72 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 58.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (7,278 of 28,364 speakers). This Roman Gushchin is worse (more manipulative) than 74.30% of the peer group.
Roman Gushchin
Speaker details
Total words: 72
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

74% percentile
025507510074.3% percentile
58.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos72 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%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%In-Group Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 6.9%Ad Hominem: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 15.9%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 2.7%Straw Man: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.9%In-Group BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos