Speaker summary
ā 48%1 analyzed article/video170 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Theo Foster results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, False Dilemma, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.6% saturation with 52.106 hits. Analysis detected 204.994 faulty-reasoning hits from 170 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 13.1% and a BS Rank of ā 20% (36,106 of 45,120 speakers). This Theo Foster is better (less manipulative) than 80.00% of the peer group.
Theo Foster
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
ā 0%Paul Heideman1%
ā 0%The Brookings Institution1%
ā 0%Conor Heffernan1%
ā 0%Gen Jack Keane1%
ā 0%Katy Longshore1%
ā 20%Theo Foster (selected)14%
ā 100%291 Brewhouse100%
ā 100%21 Grams100%
ā 100%2035 Initiative100%
ā 100%1X representative100%
ā 100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 170
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

20% percentile
025507510020.0% percentile
13.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos170 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 7.8%7.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 24.9%24.9%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 15.1%15.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 27.6%27.6%Middle GroundSitewide 0.1%Speaker 7.8%7.8%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 2.6%2.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 5.9%5.9%

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%Negativity Bias: Speaker 27.6%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 7.8%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 24.9%, sitewide 8.1%False Dilemma: Speaker 15.1%, sitewide 1.5%Middle Ground: Speaker 7.8%, sitewide 0.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 5.9%, sitewide 7.5%Burden of Proof: Speaker 2.6%, sitewide 0.4%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos