Speaker summary
⁠47%1 analyzed article/video130.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These William Elam results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Burden of Proof, and Confirmation Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 189 faulty-reasoning hits from 130.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 15.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠24% (21,631 of 28,364 speakers). This William Elam is better (less manipulative) than 76.30% of the peer group.
William Elam
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 130.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

24% percentile
025507510023.7% percentile
15.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos130.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 36.6%36.6%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 19.6%19.6%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 23.8%23.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 3.2%3.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 18.8%18.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 4.2%4.2%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 9.5%9.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 10.1%10.1%

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%Halo Effect: Speaker 36.6%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 23.8%, sitewide 5.2%Burden of Proof: Speaker 19.6%, sitewide 0.4%Negativity Bias: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 19.2%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 18.8%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 4.2%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 10.1%, sitewide 9.1%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 9.5%, sitewide 3.7%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos