Speaker summary
⁠60%1 analyzed article/video88 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stale Solbakken results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Hindsight Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 309.75 faulty-reasoning hits from 88 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 37.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (12,610 of 28,364 speakers). This Stale Solbakken is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the peer group.
Stale Solbakken
Speaker details
Total words: 88
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

56% percentile
025507510055.5% percentile
37.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos88 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Speaker 54.5%54.5%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 54.5%54.5%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 34.1%34.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 27.3%27.3%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 22.7%22.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 27.3%27.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 27.3%27.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Begging the Question: Speaker 54.5%, sitewide 1.7%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 54.5%, sitewide 1.4%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 34.1%, sitewide 1.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 27.3%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 27.3%, sitewide 8.1%Recency Bias: Speaker 27.3%, sitewide 2.7%Slippery Slope: Speaker 22.7%, sitewide 1.7%Begging the QuestionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos