Speaker summary
⁠81%1 analyzed article/video90 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Bill Wells results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Personal Incredulity, and Anecdotal, with Loss Aversion as the most egregious example at 43.3% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 286.25 faulty-reasoning hits from 90 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 34.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (13,240 of 28,364 speakers). This Bill Wells is worse (more manipulative) than 53.30% of the peer group.
Bill Wells
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 90
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

53% percentile
025507510053.3% percentile
34.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos90 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Personal IncredulitySitewide 0.2%Speaker 56.7%56.7%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 43.3%43.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 42.5%42.5%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 28.3%28.3%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 28.3%28.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 28.3%28.3%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 21.7%21.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 28.3%28.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Personal Incredulity: Speaker 56.7%, sitewide 0.2%Loss Aversion: Speaker 43.3%, sitewide 2.5%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 42.5%, sitewide 7.5%Anecdotal: Speaker 28.3%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 28.3%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 28.3%, sitewide 5.3%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 28.3%, sitewide 3.7%Indoctrination: Speaker 21.7%, sitewide 0.0%Personal IncredulitySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos