Speaker summary
⁠53%1 analyzed article/video470 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Michael Cathcart results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Overconfidence Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 14.1% saturation with 66.351 hits. Analysis detected 385.898 faulty-reasoning hits from 470 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 8.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠8% (26,083 of 28,364 speakers). This Michael Cathcart is better (less manipulative) than 92.00% of the peer group.
Michael Cathcart
Speaker details
Total words: 470
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

8% percentile
02550751008.0% percentile
8.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos470 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–25%
0.0%5%10%15%20%25%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 12.5%12.5%Circular ReasoningSitewide 0.1%Speaker 5.8%5.8%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 10.3%10.3%Tu QuoqueSitewide 0.2%Speaker 4.9%4.9%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 5.8%5.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 10.3%10.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 14.1%14.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 5.9%5.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 5.8%5.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%5%5%10%10%15%15%20%20%25%25%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 14.1%, sitewide 11.1%Ad Hominem: Speaker 12.5%, sitewide 2.2%Halo Effect: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 6.7%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 4.6%In-Group Bias: Speaker 5.9%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 5.8%, sitewide 6.0%Circular Reasoning: Speaker 5.8%, sitewide 0.1%False Dilemma: Speaker 5.8%, sitewide 1.5%Tu Quoque: Speaker 4.9%, sitewide 0.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos