Speaker summary
⁠72%1 analyzed article/video110.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Andrea Casanova results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 68.7% saturation with 85.5 hits. Analysis detected 333.5 faulty-reasoning hits from 110.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 35.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (12,922 of 28,364 speakers). This Andrea Casanova is worse (more manipulative) than 54.40% of the peer group.
Andrea Casanova
Speaker details
Total words: 110.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510054.4% percentile
35.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos110.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 68.7%68.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 63.3%63.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.3%50.3%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 12.7%12.7%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 19.0%19.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 25.3%25.3%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 12.1%12.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 68.7%, sitewide 8.1%Anecdotal: Speaker 63.3%, sitewide 5.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 25.3%, sitewide 15.9%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 19.0%, sitewide 9.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 12.7%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 12.1%, sitewide 2.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos