Speaker summary
⁠85%1 analyzed article/video152 analyzed words
BS Summary: These WDC-NA results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 40.8% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 311 faulty-reasoning hits from 152 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 22.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠37% (17,931 of 28,364 speakers). This WDC-NA is better (less manipulative) than 63.20% of the peer group.
WDC-NA
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 152
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

37% percentile
025507510036.8% percentile
22.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos152 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 40.8%40.8%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 21.7%21.7%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 22.4%22.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 22.4%22.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 22.4%22.4%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 15.1%15.1%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 15.1%15.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 22.4%22.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 22.4%22.4%

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%In-Group Bias: Speaker 40.8%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 22.4%, sitewide 11.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 22.4%, sitewide 15.9%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 22.4%, sitewide 9.1%Loss Aversion: Speaker 22.4%, sitewide 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 22.4%, sitewide 3.3%False Dilemma: Speaker 21.7%, sitewide 1.5%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 15.1%, sitewide 1.9%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 15.1%, sitewide 2.2%In-Group BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos