Speaker summary
⁠61%2 analyzed articles/videos60.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Mark Alford results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Indoctrination, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 65% saturation with 38.025 hits. Analysis detected 137.025 faulty-reasoning hits from 60.667 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 35% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (12,905 of 27,743 speakers). This Mark Alford is worse (more manipulative) than 53.50% of the peer group.
Mark Alford
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 60.667
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510053.5% percentile
35.0% BS Score2 analyzed videos60.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 65.0%65.0%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 30.0%30.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 30.0%30.0%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 20.0%20.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 30.0%30.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 65.0%, sitewide 15.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 30.0%, sitewide 0.8%Indoctrination: Speaker 30.0%, sitewide 0.0%Negativity Bias: Speaker 30.0%, sitewide 19.2%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 20.0%, sitewide 3.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos