THE QUESTION
Why do false claims spread faster than corrections?
Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.
30 at the table (29 simulated) · 3 actions proposed against 5 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
Score the roots first
why
The method's own practice, before any action is proposed: each root cause is scored 1–5 on how feasible it is to address, how much impact addressing it would have, and how likely it is to resolve by itself with no intervention. Priority goes to roots with high impact, high feasibility and low likelihood of fixing themselves — priority = impact + feasibility − likelihood. Scores are averaged across the group and shown with how many scored.
1 = low, 5 = high. Your own scores; the group's averages beside them.
| root cause | feasible | impact | fixes itself | priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anyone with relevant expertise has funding from someone with an interest | – | |||
| Emergency powers suspend the checks that would have caught it | – | |||
| Nobody has ever measured what a late correction costs | – | |||
| Retracting a paper takes years and the claim travels in days | – | |||
| Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | – |
Would each action move each root cause?
Down the side: the actions people proposed. Across the top: the root causes the map found. Every square is one vote on one question — would this action significantly reduce that cause? One side has to reach 75% of the votes cast to settle it; short of that the square stays split.
why
Answered at 75% of votes cast, like every other question here. Split means people voted and neither side reached that bar — it is a result, not a queue, and it stays split until enough people change their minds. A square nobody settles stays undecided; it never turns into a no. Judging each pair on its own is what stops a popular action being credited with fixing things it does not touch.
| ACTION | ROOT CAUSES · does the action on the left reduce it? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anyone with relevant expertise has funding from someone with an interest | Emergency powers suspend the checks that would have caught it | Nobody has ever measured what a late correction costs | Retracting a paper takes years and the claim travels in days | Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported | |
| Publish the confidence and the range with every statement, always discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 23 yes / 6 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 5 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 4 yes / 25 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 4 yes / 25 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 4 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
| A standing review date on every piece of guidance, published in advance discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 4 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 5 yes / 24 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 26 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 27 yes / 2 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 26 yes / 3 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
| A red team paid to argue the guidance is wrong, reporting separately discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 4 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 27 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 26 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 23 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 26 yes / 3 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
Highest leverage so far
Publish the confidence and the range with every statement, always reduces 3 of 5 root causes
A standing review date on every piece of guidance, published in advance reduces 3 of 5 root causes
A red team paid to argue the guidance is wrong, reporting separately reduces 2 of 5 root causes