Speaker summary
⁠87%1 analyzed article/video82.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Steve Weinhoeft results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Appeal to Emotion, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 74.2% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 424.667 faulty-reasoning hits from 82.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 50.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (8,255 of 28,364 speakers). This Steve Weinhoeft is worse (more manipulative) than 70.90% of the peer group.
Steve Weinhoeft
Speaker details
Total words: 82.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

71% percentile
025507510070.9% percentile
50.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos82.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 74.2%74.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 74.2%74.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 51.6%51.6%Appeal to NatureSitewide 0.2%Speaker 25.8%25.8%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 25.8%25.8%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 25.8%25.8%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 24.2%24.2%

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%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 74.2%, sitewide 26.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 74.2%, sitewide 0.0%In-Group Bias: Speaker 51.6%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to Nature: Speaker 25.8%, sitewide 0.2%False Dilemma: Speaker 25.8%, sitewide 1.5%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 25.8%, sitewide 2.2%Begging the Question: Speaker 24.2%, sitewide 1.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos