Speaker summary
ā 77%1 analyzed article/video64 analyzed words
BS Summary: These John Dinsdale results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, In-Group Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 168 faulty-reasoning hits from 64 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 37.5% and a BS Rank of ā 59% (17,563 of 41,930 speakers). This John Dinsdale is worse (more manipulative) than 58.10% of the peer group.
John Dinsdale
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
ā 0%The Brookings Institution1%
ā 0%Conor Heffernan1%
ā 0%Gen Jack Keane1%
ā 0%Katy Longshore1%
ā 0%MARGARET BRENNAN1%
ā 59%John Dinsdale (selected)38%
ā 100%314 Action Fund100%
ā 100%21 Grams100%
ā 100%2035 Initiative100%
ā 100%1X representative100%
ā 100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 64
Article count: 1
Authors
?

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

58% percentile
025507510058.1% percentile
37.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos64 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“75%
0.0%20%40%60%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 50.0%50.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 25.0%25.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 25.0%25.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 3.3%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 8.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 25.0%, sitewide 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos