Speaker summary
⁠70%1 analyzed article/video199.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Erik Stanfield results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Begging the Question, and Pessimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 49.8% saturation with 157 hits. Analysis detected 774.141 faulty-reasoning hits from 199.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 26.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (16,062 of 28,364 speakers). This Erik Stanfield is better (less manipulative) than 56.60% of the peer group.
Erik Stanfield
Speaker details
Total words: 199.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

43% percentile
025507510043.4% percentile
26.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos199.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 36.7%36.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 49.8%49.8%Sunk Cost EffectSitewide 0.3%Speaker 32.5%32.5%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 30.8%30.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 34.0%34.0%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 27.3%27.3%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 20.6%20.6%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 20.0%20.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 9.8%9.8%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 7.0%7.0%

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 Emotion: Speaker 49.8%, sitewide 15.9%Slippery Slope: Speaker 36.7%, sitewide 1.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 34.0%, sitewide 7.5%Sunk Cost Effect: Speaker 32.5%, sitewide 0.3%Begging the Question: Speaker 30.8%, sitewide 1.7%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 27.3%, sitewide 1.9%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 20.6%, sitewide 2.2%Loss Aversion: Speaker 20.0%, sitewide 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 9.8%, sitewide 0.8%Indoctrination: Speaker 7.0%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos