Speaker summary
⁠79%1 analyzed article/video88.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dan Berte results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 65.7% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 217.359 faulty-reasoning hits from 88.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 37.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (17,269 of 41,650 speakers). This Dan Berte is worse (more manipulative) than 58.50% of the peer group.
Dan Berte
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%MARGARET BRENNAN1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠59%Dan Berte (selected)38%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 88.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

59% percentile
025507510058.5% percentile
37.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos88.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 65.7%65.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 45.9%45.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 38.6%38.6%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 19.6%19.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 19.6%19.6%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Anecdotal: Speaker 65.7%, sitewide 5.2%Optimism Bias: Speaker 45.9%, sitewide 6.0%Halo Effect: Speaker 38.6%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 19.6%, sitewide 11.1%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 19.6%, sitewide 3.7%AnecdotalSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos