Speaker summary
48%7 analyzed articles/videos300 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Brad Lander results contain 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 40.5% saturation with 130.143 hits. Analysis detected 370.306 faulty-reasoning hits from 300 analyzed words across 7 articles, generating a BS Score of 9.6% and a BS Rank of 11% (24,036 of 26,819 speakers). This Brad Lander is better (less manipulative) than 89.60% of the peer group.

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

10% percentile
025507510010.4% percentile
9.6% BS Score7 analyzed videos300 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 40.5%40.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 8.2%8.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 7.7%7.7%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 6.0%6.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 5.3%5.3%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 6.0%6.0%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 4.8%4.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 10.0%10.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 8.2%8.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 5.8%5.8%

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 40.5%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 8.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 7.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 8.2%, sitewide 11.1%In-Group Bias: Speaker 10.0%, sitewide 6.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 5.8%, sitewide 8.1%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 1.9%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 5.3%, sitewide 0.8%Begging the Question: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Speaker 2.8%, sitewide 1.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate