Speaker summary
⁠78%1 analyzed article/video26.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Joel Stalcup results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Anecdotal, and Bandwagon, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 55.3% saturation with 21 hits. Analysis detected 77.539 faulty-reasoning hits from 26.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 43.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (16,337 of 44,421 speakers). This Joel Stalcup is worse (more manipulative) than 63.20% of the peer group.
Joel Stalcup
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠64%Joel Stalcup (selected)44%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 26.667
Article count: 1
Authors
?

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

63% percentile
025507510063.2% percentile
43.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos26.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 62.8%62.8%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Speaker 44.7%44.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 44.7%44.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 55.3%55.3%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 10.5%10.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%In-Group Bias: Speaker 62.8%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 55.3%, sitewide 15.9%Anecdotal: Speaker 44.7%, sitewide 5.2%Bandwagon: Speaker 44.7%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 10.5%, sitewide 1.1%In-Group BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos