Speaker summary
⁠52%1 analyzed article/video50.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Evan Barker results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, and In-Group Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 59.3% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 206.633 faulty-reasoning hits from 50.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 28.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (15,300 of 28,364 speakers). This Evan Barker is better (less manipulative) than 53.90% of the peer group.
Evan Barker
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 50.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

46% percentile
025507510046.1% percentile
28.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos50.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 59.3%59.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 42.6%42.6%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 29.6%29.6%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 25.6%25.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 29.6%29.6%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 7.4%7.4%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 7.4%7.4%

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 59.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 42.6%, sitewide 11.1%Ad Hominem: Speaker 29.6%, sitewide 2.2%In-Group Bias: Speaker 29.6%, sitewide 6.9%Slippery Slope: Speaker 25.6%, sitewide 1.7%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 7.4%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Speaker 7.4%, sitewide 2.7%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos