Speaker summary
74%8 analyzed articles/videos210 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Department of War results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Negativity Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 52.4% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 384 faulty-reasoning hits from 210 analyzed words across 8 articles and videos, generating a BS Score of 22.9% and a BS Rank of 37% (17,877 of 28,364 speakers). This Department of War is better (less manipulative) than 63.00% of the peer group.
Department of War

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

37% percentile
025507510037.0% percentile
22.9% BS Score8 analyzed videos210 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 52.4%52.4%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 29.5%29.5%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 29.5%29.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 19.1%19.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 29.5%29.5%Primacy EffectSitewide 0.9%Speaker 9.5%9.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 5.2%5.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 8.1%8.1%

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 52.4%, sitewide 11.1%False Dilemma: Speaker 29.5%, sitewide 1.5%Negativity Bias: Speaker 29.5%, sitewide 19.2%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 29.5%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 19.1%, sitewide 3.3%Primacy Effect: Speaker 9.5%, sitewide 0.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 8.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 5.2%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate