Speaker summary
⁠35%4 analyzed articles/videos166 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Howard University results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Framing Effect, with Status Quo Bias as the most egregious example at 27.4% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 194 faulty-reasoning hits from 166 analyzed words across 4 articles and videos, generating a BS Score of 15% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (34,237 of 45,144 speakers). This Howard University is better (less manipulative) than 75.80% of the peer group.
Howard University
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠25%Howard University (selected)15%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 166
Content count: 4
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

24% percentile
025507510024.2% percentile
15.0% BS Score4 analyzed videos166 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 27.4%27.4%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 9.7%9.7%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Speaker 11.2%11.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 18.9%18.9%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Speaker 7.7%7.7%

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%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 27.4%, sitewide 2.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 9.7%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 18.9%, sitewide 11.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Speaker 11.2%, sitewide 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Speaker 7.7%, sitewide 1.9%Status Quo BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos