Speaker summary
⁠68%1 analyzed article/video33.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Janis Puracal results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect and Appeal to Emotion, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 49% saturation with 25 hits. Analysis detected 50.663 faulty-reasoning hits from 33.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 48% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (15,010 of 43,663 speakers). This Janis Puracal is worse (more manipulative) than 65.60% of the peer group.
Janis Puracal
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠66%Janis Puracal (selected)48%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 33.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

66% percentile
025507510065.6% percentile
48.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos33.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 80.0%80.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 49.0%49.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 14.9%14.9%

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%Framing Effect: Speaker 80.0%, sitewide 26.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 49.0%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 14.9%, sitewide 15.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos