Speaker summary
⁠52%4 analyzed articles/videos384 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Marcus Plescia results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Halo Effect, and Optimism Bias, with Status Quo Bias as the most egregious example at 34.9% saturation with 184 hits. Analysis detected 585.059 faulty-reasoning hits from 384 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 12.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠17% (23,538 of 28,364 speakers). This Marcus Plescia is better (less manipulative) than 83.00% of the peer group.
Marcus Plescia
Speaker details
Total words: 384
Article count: 4
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

17% percentile
025507510017.0% percentile
12.5% BS Score4 analyzed videos384 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 34.9%34.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 23.6%23.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 3.0%3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 8.7%8.7%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 8.7%8.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 10.8%10.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 5.7%5.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 8.7%8.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 17.5%17.5%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Speaker 3.6%3.6%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 34.9%, sitewide 2.2%Halo Effect: Speaker 23.6%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 17.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 3.0%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Speaker 10.8%, sitewide 6.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 0.8%False Dilemma: Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 1.5%In-Group Bias: Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 6.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 5.7%, sitewide 8.1%Bandwagon: Speaker 3.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos