Speaker summary
⁠79%1 analyzed article/video102.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jon Taylor results contain 13 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Begging the Question, with False Dilemma as the most egregious example at 49.9% saturation with 54.152 hits. Analysis detected 355.635 faulty-reasoning hits from 102.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 18.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠31% (28,333 of 40,558 speakers). This Jon Taylor is better (less manipulative) than 69.90% of the peer group.
Jon Taylor
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%MARGARET BRENNAN1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠31%Jon Taylor (selected)19%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 102.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

30% percentile
025507510030.1% percentile
18.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos102.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 49.9%49.9%Tu QuoqueSitewide 0.2%Speaker 17.8%17.8%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 17.8%17.8%Special PleadingSitewide 0.3%Speaker 16.1%16.1%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 17.0%17.0%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 16.1%16.1%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 13.5%13.5%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 16.1%16.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 16.1%16.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 13.3%13.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%False Dilemma: Speaker 49.9%, sitewide 1.5%Framing Effect: Speaker 13.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 20.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 17.8%, sitewide 15.9%Begging the Question: Speaker 17.8%, sitewide 1.7%Tu Quoque: Speaker 17.8%, sitewide 0.2%Ad Hominem: Speaker 17.0%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 16.1%, sitewide 2.7%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 16.1%, sitewide 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 16.1%, sitewide 3.3%Special Pleading: Speaker 16.1%, sitewide 0.3%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 13.3%, sitewide 7.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 2.8%, sitewide 0.8%False DilemmaSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos