Speaker summary
⁠46%2 analyzed articles/videos15.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Eugene Daniels results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 89.7% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 253 faulty-reasoning hits from 15.667 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 72.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (5,430 of 26,411 speakers). This Eugene Daniels is worse (more manipulative) than 79.40% of the peer group.
Eugene Daniels
Speaker details
Total words: 15.667
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

79% percentile
025507510079.4% percentile
72.1% BS Score2 analyzed videos15.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Speaker 89.7%89.7%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 89.7%89.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 89.7%89.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 89.7%89.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 89.7%89.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 89.7%89.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 89.7%89.7%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 10.3%10.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 10.3%10.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 89.7%, sitewide 11.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Speaker 89.7%, sitewide 0.5%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 89.7%, sitewide 5.3%Framing Effect: Speaker 89.7%, sitewide 26.9%Loss Aversion: Speaker 89.7%, sitewide 2.5%Negativity Bias: Speaker 89.7%, sitewide 19.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 89.7%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 15.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos