Speaker summary
⁠53%1 analyzed article/video64.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Zack Defazio-Farrell results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Availability Heuristic, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 73.6% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 162 faulty-reasoning hits from 64.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 36.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (19,118 of 45,145 speakers). This Zack Defazio-Farrell is worse (more manipulative) than 57.70% of the peer group.
Zack Defazio-Farrell
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠58%Zack Defazio-Farrell (selected)37%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 64.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

58% percentile
025507510057.7% percentile
36.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos64.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 73.6%73.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 24.6%24.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 24.6%24.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 24.6%24.6%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 73.6%, sitewide 26.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 24.6%, sitewide 0.8%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 24.6%, sitewide 9.1%In-Group Bias: Speaker 24.6%, sitewide 6.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos