Speaker summary
⁠94%1 analyzed article/video73 analyzed words
BS Summary: These John Warren results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 75.5% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 299.547 faulty-reasoning hits from 73 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 40.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (11,701 of 28,364 speakers). This John Warren is worse (more manipulative) than 58.70% of the peer group.
John Warren
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 73
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

59% percentile
025507510058.7% percentile
40.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos73 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 75.5%75.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 68.9%68.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 68.9%68.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 37.7%37.7%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 37.7%37.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 12.3%12.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 12.3%12.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 12.3%12.3%

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 Emotion: Speaker 75.5%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 68.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 68.9%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 37.7%, sitewide 0.8%Loss Aversion: Speaker 37.7%, sitewide 2.5%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 12.3%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 12.3%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Speaker 12.3%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos