Speaker summary
⁠67%3 analyzed articles/videos182.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Davide Pagliarani results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, and In-Group Bias, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 52.8% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 550.884 faulty-reasoning hits from 182.667 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 35.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (13,079 of 28,364 speakers). This Davide Pagliarani is worse (more manipulative) than 53.90% of the peer group.
Davide Pagliarani
Speaker details
Total words: 182.667
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510053.9% percentile
35.3% BS Score3 analyzed videos182.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 52.8%52.8%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 50.9%50.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 42.6%42.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 46.2%46.2%Circular ReasoningSitewide 0.1%Speaker 26.0%26.0%Tu QuoqueSitewide 0.2%Speaker 26.0%26.0%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 21.3%21.3%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 16.6%16.6%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 52.8%, sitewide 3.7%Ad Hominem: Speaker 50.9%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 46.2%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 42.6%, sitewide 6.9%Circular Reasoning: Speaker 26.0%, sitewide 0.1%Tu Quoque: Speaker 26.0%, sitewide 0.2%False Dilemma: Speaker 21.3%, sitewide 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 16.6%, sitewide 3.1%Self-Serving BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos