Speaker summary
⁠60%1 analyzed article/video72 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Peter Feaver results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Pessimism Bias, with Begging the Question as the most egregious example at 75% saturation with 60.75 hits. Analysis detected 229.5 faulty-reasoning hits from 72 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠77% (6,777 of 28,364 speakers). This Peter Feaver is worse (more manipulative) than 76.10% of the peer group.
Peter Feaver
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 72
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

76% percentile
025507510076.1% percentile
62.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos72 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%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%Begging the Question: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 1.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the QuestionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos