Speaker summary
⁠78%1 analyzed article/video153 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Vandenberg Space Force Base results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 54.9% saturation with 84.037 hits. Analysis detected 376.185 faulty-reasoning hits from 153 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 21.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (18,322 of 28,364 speakers). This Vandenberg Space Force Base is better (less manipulative) than 64.60% of the peer group.
Vandenberg Space Force Base
Speaker details
Total words: 153
Article count: 1
Authors
?

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

35% percentile
025507510035.4% percentile
21.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos153 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 54.9%54.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 29.1%29.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 31.5%31.5%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 14.6%14.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 14.6%14.6%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 7.3%7.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 18.2%18.2%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Halo Effect: Speaker 54.9%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 31.5%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 29.1%, sitewide 6.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 18.2%, sitewide 19.2%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 14.6%, sitewide 5.3%Loss Aversion: Speaker 14.6%, sitewide 2.5%Anecdotal: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 5.2%Optimism Bias: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 7.3%, sitewide 11.1%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos