Speaker summary
⁠41%2 analyzed articles/videos182.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These William Fick results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Indoctrination, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 22.4% saturation with 57 hits. Analysis detected 217.792 faulty-reasoning hits from 182.333 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 12.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠17% (23,101 of 27,816 speakers). This William Fick is better (less manipulative) than 83.00% of the peer group.
William Fick
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 182.333
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

17% percentile
025507510017.0% percentile
12.5% BS Score2 analyzed videos182.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 12.2%12.2%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Speaker 8.9%8.9%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 8.2%8.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 11.9%11.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 22.4%22.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 15.8%15.8%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 4.3%4.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 16.5%16.5%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 22.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 15.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 16.5%, sitewide 15.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 12.2%, sitewide 0.0%Halo Effect: Speaker 11.9%, sitewide 6.7%Straw Man: Speaker 8.9%, sitewide 0.9%Loss Aversion: Speaker 8.2%, sitewide 2.5%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 4.3%, sitewide 3.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos