Speaker summary
58% 1 analyzed article/video 640 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Damon Cann results contain 21 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias , Hasty Generalization , and Halo Effect , with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 15.6% saturation with 150 hits . Analysis detected 1,266.129 faulty-reasoning hits from 640 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 7.6% and a BS Rank of 7% (26,492 of 28,364 speakers). This Damon Cann is better (less manipulative) than 93.40% of the peer group. Damon Cann
Speaker details
Total words: 640
Article count: 1
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed speakers
7% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 6.6% percentile 7.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos640 analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Speaker 6.1% 6.1% Hindsight Bias Sitewide 1.4% Speaker 15.0% 15.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Speaker 6.0% 6.0% Post Hoc (False Cause) Sitewide 3.3% Speaker 15.6% 15.6% Horn Effect Sitewide 1.0% Speaker 12.6% 12.6% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Speaker 15.2% 15.2% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Speaker 14.2% 14.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Speaker 3.8% 3.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Speaker 15.0% 15.0% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Speaker 5.4% 5.4% 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% Framing Effect: Speaker 6.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 19.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 15.6%, sitewide 3.3% Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 15.2%, sitewide 4.6% Hasty Generalization: Speaker 15.0%, sitewide 8.1% Hindsight Bias: Speaker 15.0%, sitewide 1.4% Halo Effect: Speaker 14.2%, sitewide 6.7% Horn Effect: Speaker 12.6%, sitewide 1.0% Appeal to Authority: Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Speaker 5.4%, sitewide 9.1% Anecdotal: Speaker 8.1%, sitewide 5.2% Confirmation Bias: Speaker 6.4%, sitewide 7.5% Optimism Bias: Speaker 3.6%, sitewide 6.0% Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 5.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Speaker 5.2%, sitewide 2.7% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 4.5%, sitewide 0.8% Begging the Question: Speaker 4.0%, sitewide 1.7% Status Quo Bias: Speaker 3.9%, sitewide 2.2% Bandwagon: Speaker 3.6%, sitewide 2.2% Sunk Cost Effect: Speaker 3.6%, sitewide 0.3% Circular Reasoning: Speaker 2.5%, sitewide 0.1% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Speaker rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst