Speaker summary
⁠60%1 analyzed article/video89.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Robin Pam results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Red Herring, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 64.9% saturation with 65.25 hits. Analysis detected 231.25 faulty-reasoning hits from 89.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 33.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (13,748 of 28,364 speakers). This Robin Pam is worse (more manipulative) than 51.50% of the peer group.
Robin Pam
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 89.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

52% percentile
025507510051.5% percentile
33.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos89.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 64.9%64.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 44.8%44.8%Red HerringSitewide 0.7%Speaker 29.9%29.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 20.1%20.1%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 20.1%20.1%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 20.1%20.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 64.9%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 44.8%, sitewide 11.1%Red Herring: Speaker 29.9%, sitewide 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 20.1%, sitewide 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 20.1%, sitewide 3.1%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 20.1%, sitewide 1.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos