Speaker summary
⁠44%1 analyzed article/video85.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Lea results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Self-Serving Bias, and Halo Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 41.5% saturation with 27 hits. Analysis detected 92 faulty-reasoning hits from 85.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 23.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠40% (27,174 of 45,145 speakers). This Lea is better (less manipulative) than 60.20% of the peer group.
Lea
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠40%Lea (selected)24%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 85.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

40% percentile
025507510039.8% percentile
23.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos85.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 41.5%41.5%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 21.4%21.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 21.4%21.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 8.7%8.7%

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%Optimism Bias: Speaker 41.5%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 21.4%, sitewide 15.9%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 21.4%, sitewide 3.7%Halo Effect: Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos