Speaker summary
⁠53%2 analyzed articles/videos84 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Ben Gerhardstein results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, In-Group Bias, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 42.7% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 332.638 faulty-reasoning hits from 84 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 30.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (14,598 of 28,364 speakers). This Ben Gerhardstein is better (less manipulative) than 51.50% of the peer group.
Ben Gerhardstein
Speaker details
Total words: 84
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

49% percentile
025507510048.5% percentile
30.8% BS Score2 analyzed videos84 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 42.4%42.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 42.4%42.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 42.7%42.7%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 25.3%25.3%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 25.3%25.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 25.3%25.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 25.3%25.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 17.3%17.3%

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%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 42.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 42.4%, sitewide 11.1%In-Group Bias: Speaker 42.4%, sitewide 6.9%Anecdotal: Speaker 25.3%, sitewide 5.2%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 25.3%, sitewide 5.3%Halo Effect: Speaker 25.3%, sitewide 6.7%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 25.3%, sitewide 3.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 17.3%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos