Speaker summary
⁠84%3 analyzed articles/videos114 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Sonam Wangchuk results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Begging the Question, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 68.5% saturation with 78.101 hits. Analysis detected 331.557 faulty-reasoning hits from 114 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 35% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (13,147 of 28,364 speakers). This Sonam Wangchuk is worse (more manipulative) than 53.70% of the peer group.
Sonam Wangchuk
Speaker details
Total words: 114
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510053.7% percentile
35.0% BS Score3 analyzed videos114 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 68.5%68.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 59.2%59.2%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 32.3%32.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 32.3%32.3%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 25.3%25.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 18.7%18.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 18.7%18.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 25.3%25.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 68.5%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 59.2%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 32.3%, sitewide 8.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 32.3%, sitewide 4.6%Begging the Question: Speaker 25.3%, sitewide 1.7%Negativity Bias: Speaker 25.3%, sitewide 19.2%Optimism Bias: Speaker 18.7%, sitewide 6.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 18.7%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos