Speaker summary
40%4 analyzed articles/videos194 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Richard Novak results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Self-Serving Bias, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 27.3% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 354 faulty-reasoning hits from 194 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 12% and a BS Rank of 16% (23,887 of 28,364 speakers). This Richard Novak is better (less manipulative) than 84.20% of the peer group.
Richard Novak
Speaker details
Total words: 194
Article count: 4
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

16% percentile
025507510015.8% percentile
12.0% BS Score4 analyzed videos194 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 28.7%28.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 27.3%27.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 7.1%7.1%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 11.4%11.4%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 11.7%11.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 7.1%7.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 4.3%4.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 4.3%4.3%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 4.5%4.5%

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%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 28.7%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 27.3%, sitewide 11.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 7.1%, sitewide 19.2%Halo Effect: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 6.7%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 11.7%, sitewide 3.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 11.4%, sitewide 2.7%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 4.3%, sitewide 7.5%Ad Hominem: Speaker 7.1%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Speaker 4.5%, sitewide 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 4.3%, sitewide 0.8%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide rateSpeaker rate