Speaker summary
⁠92%1 analyzed article/video92 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Michael Cembalest results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 368 faulty-reasoning hits from 92 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 57.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (7,415 of 28,364 speakers). This Michael Cembalest is worse (more manipulative) than 73.90% of the peer group.
Michael Cembalest
Speaker details
Total words: 92
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

74% percentile
025507510073.9% percentile
57.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos92 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 5.3%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 7.5%Framing Effect: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 26.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 6.7%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos