Speaker summary
⁠79%1 analyzed article/video203.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Brian Fennessy results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Authority, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 64.9% saturation with 207 hits. Analysis detected 546.539 faulty-reasoning hits from 203.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 22.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (18,206 of 28,364 speakers). This Brian Fennessy is better (less manipulative) than 64.20% of the peer group.
Brian Fennessy
Speaker details
Total words: 203.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

36% percentile
025507510035.8% percentile
22.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos203.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 65.7%65.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 64.9%64.9%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 17.2%17.2%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 5.6%5.6%Primacy EffectSitewide 0.9%Speaker 5.6%5.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 7.5%7.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 7.5%7.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 7.5%7.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Halo Effect: Speaker 65.7%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 64.9%, sitewide 15.9%Anecdotal: Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 17.2%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 7.5%, sitewide 8.1%Optimism Bias: Speaker 7.5%, sitewide 6.0%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 7.5%, sitewide 4.6%Primacy Effect: Speaker 5.6%, sitewide 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 5.6%, sitewide 0.0%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos