Speaker summary
⁠67%1 analyzed article/video98.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These John A. Eisenberg results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 76.3% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 341.803 faulty-reasoning hits from 98.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 36.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (12,732 of 28,364 speakers). This John A. Eisenberg is worse (more manipulative) than 55.10% of the peer group.
John A. Eisenberg
Speaker details
Total words: 98.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

55% percentile
025507510055.1% percentile
36.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos98.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 76.3%76.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 42.5%42.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 30.8%30.8%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 20.1%20.1%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 42.5%42.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 22.3%22.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 23.2%23.2%

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 76.3%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 42.5%, sitewide 5.3%Framing Effect: Speaker 42.5%, sitewide 26.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 30.8%, sitewide 7.5%Negativity Bias: Speaker 23.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 22.3%, sitewide 15.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 20.1%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos