Speaker summary
⁠72%1 analyzed article/video147.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Micheal Crockett results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and False Dilemma, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 36.7% saturation with 54.061 hits. Analysis detected 249.127 faulty-reasoning hits from 147.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 20% and a BS Rank of ⁠33% (19,252 of 28,364 speakers). This Micheal Crockett is better (less manipulative) than 67.90% of the peer group.
Micheal Crockett
Speaker details
Total words: 147.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

32% percentile
025507510032.1% percentile
20.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos147.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 39.7%39.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 36.6%36.6%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 15.1%15.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 15.9%15.9%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 10.8%10.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 14.1%14.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 10.8%10.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 17.2%17.2%

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%False Dilemma: Speaker 39.7%, sitewide 1.5%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 36.6%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 17.2%, sitewide 19.2%Anecdotal: Speaker 15.9%, sitewide 5.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 15.1%, sitewide 2.7%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 14.1%, sitewide 8.1%Burden of Proof: Speaker 10.8%, sitewide 0.4%In-Group Bias: Speaker 10.8%, sitewide 6.9%False DilemmaSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos