Speaker summary
⁠78%1 analyzed article/video121.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jonathan Krinsky results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Recency Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 48.4% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 237.5 faulty-reasoning hits from 121.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 33.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (19,377 of 42,435 speakers). This Jonathan Krinsky is worse (more manipulative) than 54.30% of the peer group.
Jonathan Krinsky
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠55%Jonathan Krinsky (selected)34%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 121.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510054.3% percentile
33.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos121.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 48.4%48.4%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 42.9%42.9%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Speaker 42.9%42.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 16.5%16.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 48.4%, sitewide 1.9%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 42.9%, sitewide 4.0%Recency Bias: Speaker 42.9%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 16.5%, sitewide 11.1%Pessimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos