Speaker summary
52%7 analyzed articles/videos206.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Public Policy Institute of California results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Bandwagon, Anchoring Bias, and Recency Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 31.4% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 404.703 faulty-reasoning hits from 206.333 analyzed words across 7 articles, generating a BS Score of 18.5% and a BS Rank of 30% (20,058 of 28,364 speakers). This Public Policy Institute of California is better (less manipulative) than 70.70% of the peer group.
Public Policy Institute of California

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

29% percentile
025507510029.3% percentile
18.5% BS Score7 analyzed videos206.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Speaker 25.7%25.7%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Speaker 25.7%25.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 31.4%31.4%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 16.7%16.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 8.0%8.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 15.2%15.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 16.6%16.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 8.9%8.9%

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 31.4%, sitewide 11.1%Bandwagon: Speaker 25.7%, sitewide 2.2%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 25.7%, sitewide 4.0%Negativity Bias: Speaker 8.0%, sitewide 19.2%Recency Bias: Speaker 16.7%, sitewide 2.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 16.6%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Speaker 15.2%, sitewide 6.0%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 8.9%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate