Speaker summary
⁠63%1 analyzed article/video175 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Emilio Pagán results contain 2 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 57.7% saturation with 101 hits. Analysis detected 152 faulty-reasoning hits from 175 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 43.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (16,633 of 45,145 speakers). This Emilio Pagán is worse (more manipulative) than 63.20% of the peer group.
Emilio Pagán
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠64%Emilio Pagán (selected)44%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 175
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

63% percentile
025507510063.2% percentile
43.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos175 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 57.7%57.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 29.1%29.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Optimism Bias: Speaker 57.7%, sitewide 6.0%In-Group Bias: Speaker 29.1%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos