Speaker summary
⁠75%2 analyzed articles/videos134 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Naga Chandrasekaran results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 87% saturation with 122.722 hits. Analysis detected 519.675 faulty-reasoning hits from 134 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 58.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (7,175 of 28,364 speakers). This Naga Chandrasekaran is worse (more manipulative) than 74.70% of the peer group.
Naga Chandrasekaran
Speaker details
Total words: 134
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

75% percentile
025507510074.7% percentile
58.8% BS Score2 analyzed videos134 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 87.0%87.0%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 74.1%74.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 65.0%65.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 48.1%48.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 48.1%48.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 30.5%30.5%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 87.0%, sitewide 11.1%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 74.1%, sitewide 3.7%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 65.0%, sitewide 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 48.1%, sitewide 0.8%Halo Effect: Speaker 48.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Speaker 30.5%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos