Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video26.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Aidan Hill results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Straw Man, Ad Hominem, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 16 hits. Analysis detected 80 faulty-reasoning hits from 26.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 60% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (10,219 of 45,122 speakers). This Aidan Hill is worse (more manipulative) than 77.40% of the peer group.
Aidan Hill
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠78%Aidan Hill (selected)61%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 26.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

77% percentile
025507510077.4% percentile
60.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos26.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 33.3%33.3%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 33.3%33.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 33.3%33.3%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 26.9%Straw Man: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 0.9%Ad Hominem: Speaker 33.3%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 33.3%, sitewide 0.8%In-Group Bias: Speaker 33.3%, sitewide 6.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos