Speaker summary
⁠51%2 analyzed articles/videos168.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Denny Chin results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Horn Effect, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 53.2% saturation with 166 hits. Analysis detected 453 faulty-reasoning hits from 168.5 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 18.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠29% (20,244 of 28,364 speakers). This Denny Chin is better (less manipulative) than 71.40% of the peer group.
Denny Chin
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 168.5
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

29% percentile
025507510028.6% percentile
18.1% BS Score2 analyzed videos168.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 53.2%53.2%Horn EffectSitewide 1.0%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 16.0%16.0%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 11.5%11.5%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 8.0%8.0%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 9.6%9.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 11.5%11.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Negativity Bias: Speaker 53.2%, sitewide 19.2%Ad Hominem: Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 2.2%Horn Effect: Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 16.0%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 11.5%, sitewide 15.9%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 11.5%, sitewide 1.1%Recency Bias: Speaker 9.6%, sitewide 2.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 8.0%, sitewide 0.0%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos