Speaker summary
⁠84%1 analyzed article/video83 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dan De Leon results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Appeal to Authority, and Ad Hominem, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 78.5% saturation with 65.133 hits. Analysis detected 257.948 faulty-reasoning hits from 83 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 38.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (12,254 of 28,364 speakers). This Dan De Leon is worse (more manipulative) than 56.80% of the peer group.
Dan De Leon
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 83
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

57% percentile
025507510056.8% percentile
38.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos83 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 78.5%78.5%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 44.4%44.4%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 38.7%38.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 45.2%45.2%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 26.9%26.9%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 23.1%23.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 26.9%26.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 23.1%23.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 78.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 45.2%, sitewide 11.1%Indoctrination: Speaker 44.4%, sitewide 0.0%False Dilemma: Speaker 38.7%, sitewide 1.5%Ad Hominem: Speaker 26.9%, sitewide 2.2%In-Group Bias: Speaker 26.9%, sitewide 6.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 23.1%, sitewide 26.9%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 23.1%, sitewide 1.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos