Speaker summary
⁠81%1 analyzed article/video43 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Thomas P. DiNapoli results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 55.5% saturation with 26.625 hits. Analysis detected 99 faulty-reasoning hits from 43 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 35.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (19,427 of 45,120 speakers). This Thomas P. DiNapoli is worse (more manipulative) than 56.90% of the peer group.
Thomas P. DiNapoli
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠57%Thomas P. DiNapoli (selected)36%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 43
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

57% percentile
025507510056.9% percentile
35.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos43 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 44.5%44.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 55.5%55.5%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Speaker 29.7%29.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 29.7%29.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 20.3%20.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 55.5%, sitewide 15.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 44.5%, sitewide 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Speaker 29.7%, sitewide 0.5%Framing Effect: Speaker 29.7%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 20.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos