Speaker summary
⁠80%2 analyzed articles/videos44.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Michael Lind results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 73.5% saturation with 36.765 hits. Analysis detected 196.765 faulty-reasoning hits from 44.667 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 51.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (10,713 of 40,165 speakers). This Michael Lind is worse (more manipulative) than 73.30% of the peer group.
Michael Lind
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%MARGARET BRENNAN1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠74%Michael Lind (selected)52%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 44.667
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

73% percentile
025507510073.3% percentile
51.5% BS Score2 analyzed videos44.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 73.5%73.5%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 47.1%47.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 47.1%47.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 47.1%47.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 47.1%47.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 47.1%47.1%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 73.5%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 47.1%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 47.1%, sitewide 19.2%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 47.1%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 47.1%, sitewide 3.3%Slippery Slope: Speaker 47.1%, sitewide 1.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos