Speaker summary
⁠75%1 analyzed article/video60 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Peter Bartlett results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 67.5 hits. Analysis detected 410.625 faulty-reasoning hits from 60 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 65.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (6,398 of 28,364 speakers). This Peter Bartlett is worse (more manipulative) than 77.40% of the peer group.
Peter Bartlett
Speaker details
Total words: 60
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

77% percentile
025507510077.4% percentile
65.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos60 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 100.0%100.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%In-Group Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 11.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 5.3%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 7.5%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 8.1%Recency Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 2.7%In-Group BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos