Speaker summary
⁠84%1 analyzed article/video375 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dr. Galgiani results contain 19 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 550 faulty-reasoning hits from 375 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 7.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (26,441 of 28,364 speakers). This Dr. Galgiani is better (less manipulative) than 93.20% of the peer group.
Dr. Galgiani
Speaker details
Total words: 375
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

7% percentile
02550751006.8% percentile
7.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos375 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 21.9%21.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 25.9%25.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 9.1%9.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 12.3%12.3%Appeal to NatureSitewide 0.2%Speaker 6.4%6.4%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 8.3%8.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 6.1%6.1%Middle GroundSitewide 0.1%Speaker 5.3%5.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 3.2%3.2%No True ScotsmanSitewide 0.1%Speaker 4.8%4.8%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 25.9%, sitewide 11.1%Indoctrination: Speaker 21.9%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 9.1%, sitewide 15.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 12.3%, sitewide 6.0%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 9.1%, sitewide 4.6%Recency Bias: Speaker 8.3%, sitewide 2.7%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Speaker 6.7%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to Nature: Speaker 6.4%, sitewide 0.2%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 6.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 6.1%, sitewide 0.8%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 1.9%, sitewide 5.3%Middle Ground: Speaker 5.3%, sitewide 0.1%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 4.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 2.7%No True Scotsman: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 0.1%Red Herring: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 0.7%Actor-Observer Bias: Speaker 3.5%, sitewide 0.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 1.6%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos