Speaker summary
⁠49%3 analyzed articles/videos134.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel Rosen results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 66.8% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 351.353 faulty-reasoning hits from 134.667 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 28.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠45% (14,818 of 26,943 speakers). This Daniel Rosen is better (less manipulative) than 55.00% of the peer group.
Daniel Rosen
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 134.667
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

45% percentile
025507510045.0% percentile
28.2% BS Score3 analyzed videos134.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 66.8%66.8%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 27.6%27.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 27.6%27.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 16.8%16.8%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 19.0%19.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 11.7%11.7%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 66.8%, sitewide 11.1%In-Group Bias: Speaker 27.6%, sitewide 6.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 27.6%, sitewide 3.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 19.0%, sitewide 26.9%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 16.8%, sitewide 1.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 11.7%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos