Speaker summary
⁠56%1 analyzed article/video140.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Neil Sandell results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Burden of Proof, and Self-Serving Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.6% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 174.284 faulty-reasoning hits from 140.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 11% and a BS Rank of ⁠14% (24,549 of 28,364 speakers). This Neil Sandell is better (less manipulative) than 86.50% of the peer group.
Neil Sandell
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 140.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

14% percentile
025507510013.5% percentile
11.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos140.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 9.3%9.3%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 19.4%19.4%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 10.8%10.8%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 7.2%7.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 21.2%21.2%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 5.9%5.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 8.7%8.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 5.9%5.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 3.6%3.6%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 9.3%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 21.2%, sitewide 15.9%Ad Hominem: Speaker 19.4%, sitewide 2.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 19.2%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 10.8%, sitewide 3.7%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 4.6%Burden of Proof: Speaker 7.2%, sitewide 0.4%Begging the Question: Speaker 5.9%, sitewide 1.7%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 5.9%, sitewide 5.3%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 3.6%, sitewide 3.3%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos