Speaker summary
⁠50%1 analyzed article/video131 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Tom Hurley results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Loss Aversion, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 40.6% saturation with 65.089 hits. Analysis detected 296.089 faulty-reasoning hits from 131 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 14.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠22% (22,113 of 28,364 speakers). This Tom Hurley is better (less manipulative) than 78.00% of the peer group.
Tom Hurley
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 131
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

22% percentile
025507510022.0% percentile
14.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos131 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 40.5%40.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 6.0%6.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 19.7%19.7%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 14.9%14.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 14.9%14.9%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 9.6%9.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 14.9%14.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 9.6%9.6%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 3.2%3.2%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 40.5%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 26.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 19.7%, sitewide 6.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 14.9%, sitewide 19.2%Loss Aversion: Speaker 14.9%, sitewide 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 14.9%, sitewide 3.3%Optimism Bias: Speaker 9.6%, sitewide 6.0%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 9.6%, sitewide 3.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos