Speaker summary
⁠58%1 analyzed article/video140.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Michael Devereux results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Framing Effect, and Ad Hominem, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 28.3% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 275 faulty-reasoning hits from 140.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 17.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠28% (20,581 of 28,364 speakers). This Michael Devereux is better (less manipulative) than 72.60% of the peer group.
Michael Devereux
Speaker details

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

27% percentile
025507510027.4% percentile
17.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos140.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 32.5%32.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 28.3%28.3%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 17.2%17.2%Actor-Observer BiasSitewide 0.6%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 17.2%17.2%Personal IncredulitySitewide 0.2%Speaker 8.1%8.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 13.6%13.6%

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%Ad Hominem: Speaker 32.5%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 28.3%, sitewide 11.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 17.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 19.2%Begging the Question: Speaker 17.2%, sitewide 1.7%Actor-Observer Bias: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 2.7%Personal Incredulity: Speaker 8.1%, sitewide 0.2%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos