Speaker summary
⁠81%3 analyzed articles/videos226.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Peter Harrell results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Quote-first Misdirection, and Straw Man, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 42.6% saturation with 96.491 hits. Analysis detected 409.627 faulty-reasoning hits from 226.5 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 21.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠34% (18,709 of 28,364 speakers). This Peter Harrell is better (less manipulative) than 66.00% of the peer group.
Peter Harrell
Speaker details
Total words: 226.5
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

34% percentile
025507510034.0% percentile
21.1% BS Score3 analyzed videos226.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 33.5%33.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 42.6%42.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 33.5%33.5%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 24.4%24.4%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Speaker 20.8%20.8%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 7.7%7.7%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 4.1%4.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 2.6%2.6%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 42.6%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 33.5%, sitewide 7.5%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 33.5%, sitewide 0.0%Slippery Slope: Speaker 24.4%, sitewide 1.7%Straw Man: Speaker 20.8%, sitewide 0.9%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 7.7%, sitewide 1.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 2.6%, sitewide 4.6%Begging the Question: Speaker 4.1%, sitewide 1.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos