Speaker summary
⁠45%1 analyzed article/video49 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Peter Van Buren results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Bandwagon, and Confirmation Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 58.7% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 244 faulty-reasoning hits from 49 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 44.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (10,916 of 28,364 speakers). This Peter Van Buren is worse (more manipulative) than 61.50% of the peer group.
Peter Van Buren
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠62%Peter Van Buren (selected)45%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 49
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

62% percentile
025507510061.5% percentile
44.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos49 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 58.7%58.7%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 41.3%41.3%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Speaker 41.3%41.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 41.3%41.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 41.3%41.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Optimism Bias: Speaker 58.7%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 41.3%, sitewide 11.1%Bandwagon: Speaker 41.3%, sitewide 2.2%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 41.3%, sitewide 7.5%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 41.3%, sitewide 1.1%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos