Speaker summary
⁠48%1 analyzed article/video598.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel M. Locallo results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Ad Hominem, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 14.4% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 386.925 faulty-reasoning hits from 598.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 6.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠5% (27,079 of 28,364 speakers). This Daniel M. Locallo is better (less manipulative) than 95.50% of the peer group.
Daniel M. Locallo
Speaker details
Total words: 598.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

5% percentile
02550751004.5% percentile
6.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos598.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 9.8%9.8%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 8.3%8.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 10.4%10.4%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 6.7%6.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 1.0%1.0%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Speaker 4.4%4.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 14.4%14.4%Tu QuoqueSitewide 0.2%Speaker 3.2%3.2%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 3.6%3.6%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Speaker 2.3%2.3%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 9.8%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 10.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 14.4%, sitewide 11.1%Ad Hominem: Speaker 8.3%, sitewide 2.2%Slippery Slope: Speaker 6.7%, sitewide 1.7%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 1.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Speaker 3.6%, sitewide 5.2%Straw Man: Speaker 4.4%, sitewide 0.9%Tu Quoque: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 0.2%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 2.3%, sitewide 1.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos