Speaker summary
⁠56%2 analyzed articles/videos85.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Mark Hamill results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Anecdotal, and Recency Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 63.9% saturation with 115 hits. Analysis detected 309.034 faulty-reasoning hits from 85.333 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 21.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠35% (18,671 of 28,364 speakers). This Mark Hamill is better (less manipulative) than 65.80% of the peer group.
Mark Hamill
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 85.333
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

34% percentile
025507510034.2% percentile
21.2% BS Score2 analyzed videos85.3 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 63.9%63.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 48.6%48.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 7.2%7.2%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 21.7%21.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 21.7%21.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 6.7%6.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 7.2%7.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 7.2%7.2%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 6.7%6.7%

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 63.9%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 48.6%, sitewide 6.7%Framing Effect: Speaker 7.2%, sitewide 26.9%Anecdotal: Speaker 21.7%, sitewide 5.2%Recency Bias: Speaker 21.7%, sitewide 2.7%Negativity Bias: Speaker 6.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 7.2%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 7.2%, sitewide 5.3%Optimism Bias: Speaker 6.7%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos