Speaker summary
⁠43%1 analyzed article/video256 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Daniel Sternoff results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), In-Group Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 24.7% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 405 faulty-reasoning hits from 256 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 11.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠15% (24,337 of 28,364 speakers). This Daniel Sternoff is better (less manipulative) than 85.80% of the peer group.
Daniel Sternoff
Speaker details
Total words: 256
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

14% percentile
025507510014.2% percentile
11.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos256 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 24.7%24.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 12.2%12.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 18.4%18.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 14.6%14.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 3.6%3.6%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 6.0%6.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 9.1%9.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 9.8%9.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 12.5%12.5%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 1.6%1.6%

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 12.2%, sitewide 26.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 24.7%, sitewide 0.8%In-Group Bias: Speaker 18.4%, sitewide 6.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 14.6%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 12.5%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 9.8%, sitewide 8.1%Optimism Bias: Speaker 9.1%, sitewide 6.0%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 3.6%, sitewide 9.1%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Speaker 1.6%, sitewide 2.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos