Speaker summary
⁠77%4 analyzed articles/videos216 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel Sipes results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Anecdotal, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 56.9% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 198 faulty-reasoning hits from 216 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 18.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠29% (19,124 of 26,780 speakers). This Daniel Sipes is better (less manipulative) than 71.40% of the peer group.

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

29% percentile
025507510028.6% percentile
18.3% BS Score4 analyzed videos216 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 56.9%56.9%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 9.7%9.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 9.7%9.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 11.1%11.1%Primacy EffectSitewide 0.9%Speaker 4.2%4.2%

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 56.9%, sitewide 11.1%Halo Effect: Speaker 11.1%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 9.7%, sitewide 5.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 9.7%, sitewide 2.7%Primacy Effect: Speaker 4.2%, sitewide 0.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos