Speaker summary
⁠65%1 analyzed article/video94.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These William Schofield results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 43.3% saturation with 46.125 hits. Analysis detected 229.125 faulty-reasoning hits from 94.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 33.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (20,554 of 45,134 speakers). This William Schofield is worse (more manipulative) than 54.50% of the peer group.
William Schofield
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠55%William Schofield (selected)34%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 94.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

55% percentile
025507510054.5% percentile
33.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos94.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 57.8%57.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 43.3%43.3%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 21.1%21.1%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 21.1%21.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 28.9%28.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 28.9%28.9%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Begging the Question: Speaker 57.8%, sitewide 1.7%Optimism Bias: Speaker 43.3%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 28.9%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 28.9%, sitewide 26.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 21.1%, sitewide 0.0%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 21.1%, sitewide 2.2%Begging the QuestionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos