Speaker summary
⁠92%1 analyzed article/video61 analyzed words
BS Summary: These LinkedIn spokesperson results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Status Quo Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 59% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 208 faulty-reasoning hits from 61 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 48.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (10,289 of 28,364 speakers). This LinkedIn spokesperson is worse (more manipulative) than 63.70% of the peer group.
LinkedIn spokesperson
Speaker details
Total words: 61
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

64% percentile
025507510063.7% percentile
48.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos61 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 59.0%59.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 59.0%59.0%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 59.0%59.0%Appeal to NatureSitewide 0.2%Speaker 41.0%41.0%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 41.0%41.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 41.0%41.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 41.0%41.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 59.0%, sitewide 0.8%Indoctrination: Speaker 59.0%, sitewide 0.0%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 59.0%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 41.0%, sitewide 11.1%Appeal to Nature: Speaker 41.0%, sitewide 0.2%Halo Effect: Speaker 41.0%, sitewide 6.7%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 41.0%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos