Speaker summary
⁠83%1 analyzed article/video70.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chuck Byram results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Middle Ground, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 89.5 hits. Analysis detected 162.5 faulty-reasoning hits from 70.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (12,648 of 45,122 speakers). This Chuck Byram is worse (more manipulative) than 72.00% of the peer group.
Chuck Byram
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠72%Chuck Byram (selected)50%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 70.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

72% percentile
025507510072.0% percentile
50.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos70.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Middle GroundSitewide 0.1%Speaker 22.6%22.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 27.4%27.4%

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%120%120%Optimism Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 27.4%, sitewide 11.1%Middle Ground: Speaker 22.6%, sitewide 0.1%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos