Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

21
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
60% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Mckay Wrigley on X

I couldn’t code 18 months ago. Yesterday I raised over $20,000 from initial customers to get my software business off the ground. Believe in yourself, be relentlessly resourceful, be relentlessly optimistic, and never give up.

Posted by Mckay Wrigley
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices presented; open-ended advice.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
No us-vs-them dynamics; universal self-improvement message.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Frames success via mindset traits like 'relentlessly resourceful, optimistic', reducing complex achievement to simple perseverance.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
No suspicious alignment with past 72-hour events like disasters or geopolitics; original 2020 post shows organic timing unrelated to current news cycles.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to known psyops or disinformation; mirrors benign entrepreneurial testimonials without propaganda hallmarks.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Benefits author @mckaywrigley by boosting his AI coding tutor brand @TakeoffAI, but no evidence of political operations or paid promotion beyond typical self-promotion.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No mentions of widespread agreement or social proof like 'everyone's doing it'.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency, trends, or astroturfing; static post lacks pressure for opinion change.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Unique 2020 post by @mckaywrigley not echoed verbatim recently; similar stories exist but with varied phrasing and no coordination signs.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Implies personal success formula 'Believe in yourself... never give up' applies universally, risking hasty generalization from anecdote.
Authority Overload 1/5
No cited experts or authorities; purely personal claim.
Cherry-Picked Data 4/5
Spotlights triumphant outcome '$20,000 from initial customers' and timeline, excluding potential failures or efforts.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Biased positive language like 'relentlessly optimistic' portrays grit as sole driver, glossing over skills or luck.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or negative views.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits specifics on learning process, software details, or customer acquisition, jumping from 'couldn’t code' to '$20,000 raised'.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
Highlights rapid transformation 'I couldn’t code 18 months ago... Yesterday I raised over $20,000', but not excessively shocking given common tech bootstrapping tales.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single anecdote with no repeated emotional appeals; straightforward and non-repetitive.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
Purely uplifting tone with no outrage or fact-disconnected anger.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; ends with general motivational phrases like 'never give up' without pressure.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
Mild positive inspiration through personal success and advice like 'Believe in yourself', but lacks fear, outrage, or guilt triggers.

Identified Techniques

Name Calling, Labeling Exaggeration, Minimisation Reductio ad hitlerum Repetition Loaded Language

What to Watch For

Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else