Speaker summary
⁠31%1 analyzed article/video64 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dan Conley results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 42.7% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 144 faulty-reasoning hits from 64 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 25% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (16,810 of 28,364 speakers). This Dan Conley is better (less manipulative) than 59.30% of the peer group.
Dan Conley
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 64
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

41% percentile
025507510040.7% percentile
25.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos64 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 42.7%42.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 42.7%42.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 36.5%36.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 7.3%7.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 13.5%13.5%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%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%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 42.7%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 42.7%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 36.5%, sitewide 11.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 13.5%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 7.3%, sitewide 0.8%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 7.3%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos