Speaker summary
⁠91%1 analyzed article/video121 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Noam Segal results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and False Dilemma, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 461 faulty-reasoning hits from 121 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 47.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (10,457 of 28,364 speakers). This Noam Segal is worse (more manipulative) than 63.10% of the peer group.
Noam Segal
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 121
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

63% percentile
025507510063.1% percentile
47.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos121 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 66.9%66.9%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 47.1%47.1%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 47.1%47.1%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 66.9%66.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 19.8%19.8%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 14.9%14.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 18.2%18.2%

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 Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 66.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 66.9%, sitewide 19.2%False Dilemma: Speaker 47.1%, sitewide 1.5%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 47.1%, sitewide 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 19.8%, sitewide 3.3%Optimism Bias: Speaker 18.2%, sitewide 6.0%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 14.9%, sitewide 1.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos