Speaker summary
⁠88%1 analyzed article/video82.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Scott Hanselman results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 165 faulty-reasoning hits from 82.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 66.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (6,305 of 28,364 speakers). This Scott Hanselman is worse (more manipulative) than 77.80% of the peer group.
Scott Hanselman
Speaker details
Total words: 82.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

78% percentile
025507510077.8% percentile
66.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos82.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%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%Optimism Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 3.3%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos