Speaker summary
⁠38%1 analyzed article/video104.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Joshua Méndez Harper results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 31.3% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 140 faulty-reasoning hits from 104.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 14.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠23% (35,084 of 45,054 speakers). This Joshua Méndez Harper is better (less manipulative) than 77.90% of the peer group.
Joshua Méndez Harper
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠23%Joshua Méndez Harper (selected)15%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 104.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

22% percentile
025507510022.1% percentile
14.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos104.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 31.3%31.3%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 15.7%15.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 7.8%7.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 10.8%10.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 7.8%7.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 10.8%10.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 31.3%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 7.8%, sitewide 15.9%False Dilemma: Speaker 15.7%, sitewide 1.5%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 10.8%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 10.8%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Speaker 7.8%, sitewide 6.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos