Speaker summary
ā 94%1 analyzed article/video124 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Johan Galtung results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation) and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 208 faulty-reasoning hits from 124 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 55.9% and a BS Rank of ā 74% (7,559 of 28,364 speakers). This Johan Galtung is worse (more manipulative) than 73.40% of the peer group.
Johan Galtung
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
ā 0%The Brookings Institution1%
ā 0%Gen Jack Keane1%
ā 0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
ā 0%Mike Muse1%
ā 0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
ā 74%Johan Galtung (selected)56%
ā 100%4MATIV100%
ā 100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
ā 100%314 Action Fund100%
ā 100%21 Grams100%
ā 100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 124
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

73% percentile
025507510073.4% percentile
55.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos124 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 33.9%33.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 33.9%33.9%

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%120%120%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 33.9%, sitewide 0.8%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 33.9%, sitewide 4.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos