Speaker summary
⁠55%2 analyzed articles/videos75.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Owen Gleiberman results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 54.6% saturation with 45.06 hits. Analysis detected 154.06 faulty-reasoning hits from 75.333 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 39.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (11,909 of 28,364 speakers). This Owen Gleiberman is worse (more manipulative) than 58.00% of the peer group.
Owen Gleiberman
Speaker details
Total words: 75.333
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

58% percentile
025507510058.0% percentile
39.9% BS Score2 analyzed videos75.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 54.6%54.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 40.4%40.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 40.4%40.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 24.0%24.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Halo Effect: Speaker 54.6%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 40.4%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 40.4%, sitewide 7.5%Negativity Bias: Speaker 24.0%, sitewide 19.2%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos