Speaker summary
49%7 analyzed articles/videos148.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dan Caine results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Overconfidence Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 47.5% saturation with 104 hits. Analysis detected 274.786 faulty-reasoning hits from 148.333 analyzed words across 7 articles, generating a BS Score of 24.4% and a BS Rank of 40% (17,196 of 28,364 speakers). This Dan Caine is better (less manipulative) than 60.60% of the peer group.

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

39% percentile
025507510039.4% percentile
24.4% BS Score7 analyzed videos148.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 47.5%47.5%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 35.8%35.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 37.3%37.3%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 10.1%10.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 8.7%8.7%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 7.3%7.3%

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%Halo Effect: Speaker 47.5%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 37.3%, sitewide 11.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 35.8%, sitewide 4.6%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 10.1%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 7.3%, sitewide 0.0%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate