Speaker summary
ā 64%1 analyzed article/video52.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Bruno David results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 175 faulty-reasoning hits from 52.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ā 71% (8,488 of 28,364 speakers). This Bruno David is worse (more manipulative) than 70.10% of the peer group.
Bruno David
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
ā 0%The Brookings Institution1%
ā 0%Gen Jack Keane1%
ā 0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
ā 0%Mike Muse1%
ā 0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
ā 71%Bruno David (selected)50%
ā 100%4MATIV100%
ā 100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
ā 100%314 Action Fund100%
ā 100%21 Grams100%
ā 100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 52.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

70% percentile
025507510070.1% percentile
50.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos52.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 50.0%50.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 6.9%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos