Speaker summary
⁠84%5 analyzed articles/videos58 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Smithsonian results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Status Quo Bias, Actor-Observer Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 83.3% saturation with 48.333 hits. Analysis detected 142.333 faulty-reasoning hits from 58 analyzed words across 5 articles and videos, generating a BS Score of 23.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠39% (17,436 of 28,364 speakers). This Smithsonian is better (less manipulative) than 61.50% of the peer group.
Smithsonian
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

39% percentile
025507510038.5% percentile
23.9% BS Score5 analyzed videos58 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 83.3%83.3%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 33.3%33.3%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 12.6%12.6%Actor-Observer BiasSitewide 0.6%Speaker 13.8%13.8%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 10.3%10.3%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Speaker 10.3%10.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 13.8%13.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 13.8%13.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 83.3%, sitewide 11.1%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 33.3%, sitewide 2.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 12.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 13.8%, sitewide 19.2%Actor-Observer Bias: Speaker 13.8%, sitewide 0.6%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 13.8%, sitewide 7.5%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 4.0%False Dilemma: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 1.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos