Speaker summary
⁠96%1 analyzed article/video30 analyzed words
BS Summary: These human rights organizations results contain 2 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 30 hits. Analysis detected 60 faulty-reasoning hits from 30 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (2,704 of 45,145 speakers). This human rights organizations is worse (more manipulative) than 94.00% of the peer group.
human rights organizations
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠94%human rights organizations (selected)100%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 30
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

94% percentile
025507510094.0% percentile
100.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos30 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 9.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 19.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos