Strukturering · Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

SPØRGSMÅLET

Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

Har den ene væsentlig indflydelse på den anden? Tre fjerdedele af de afgivne stemmer afgør det.

Du ser med som gæst. Vælg et brugernavn for at komme med og deltage.

Spørgsmålene fordeles mellem grupperne, så du får dem, din gruppe fik tildelt — ikke alle 162.

hvorfor

Ingen kunne svare på flere hundrede par. Hvert par går til én gruppe; et par, der deler gruppen, sendes derefter videre til andre grupper, så det kan dukke op på din liste senere, selvom det startede et andet sted. Antallet af afgjorte tæller alle gruppers arbejde, og derfor stiger det hurtigere, end din egen liste skrumper.

161 / 162 afgjort 0 til dig at besvare

Seneste optælling: afgjort: 161 · sendt videre til tværgående paneler: 0 · omstridt: 0 · under kvorum: 1 — paneler skal have mindst max(2, 75 % af panelet) afgivne stemmer; dit mindste panel har 15 medlemmer.

luk ✕

Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes → påvirker? → Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported

Intet sagt endnu.

Afsluttet fase — historikken over par og stemmer står ovenfor.Tjek logikken ↗

Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	åben	diskutér
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✓ ja	diskutér
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✓ ja	diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	✓ ja	diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✓ ja	diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✓ ja	diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✓ ja	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✓ ja	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✓ ja	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✓ ja	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✓ ja	diskutér
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✓ ja	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✓ ja	diskutér
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✓ ja	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✓ ja	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✓ ja	diskutér
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✓ udledt	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✓ udledt	diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nej	diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	→	A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	✗ nej	diskutér
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	✗ nej	diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	→	Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	✗ nej	diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	✗ nej	diskutér
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	✗ nej	diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	✗ nej	diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	✗ nej	diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nej	diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	→	A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	✗ nej	diskutér
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nej	diskutér
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	→	The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	✗ nej	diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	✗ nej	diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nej	diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nej	diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	→	The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	✗ nej	diskutér
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	✗ nej	diskutér
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nej	diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	✗ nej	diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	✗ nej	diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nej	diskutér
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nej	diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	✗ nej	diskutér
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	✗ nej	diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nej	diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nej	diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nej	diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	✗ nej	diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	→	Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	✗ nej	diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	→	The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	✗ nej	diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nej	diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	✗ nej	diskutér
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	✗ nej	diskutér
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	→	Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	✗ nej	diskutér
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	✗ nej	diskutér
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	✗ nej	diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	✗ nej	diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	✗ nej	diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	✗ nej	diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	→	Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	✗ nej	diskutér
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	✗ nej	diskutér
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	✗ nej	diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nej	diskutér
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nej	diskutér
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nej	diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nej	diskutér
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	✗ nej	diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nej	diskutér
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	✗ nej	diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nej	diskutér
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nej	diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	→	Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	✗ nej	diskutér
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nej	diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	→	Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	✗ nej	diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	→	Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	✗ nej	diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	→	The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	✗ nej	diskutér
Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	→	A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	✗ nej	diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Nobody keeps a public record of which official claims were later revised	✗ nej	diskutér
Requests for data are answered eighteen months later, if at all	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nej	diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nej	diskutér
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nej	diskutér
The few outside are dismissed as cranks by association	→	Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	✗ nej	diskutér
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nej	diskutér
A paper that contradicts the field is reviewed harder than one that confirms it	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nej	diskutér
Once labelled, a claim cannot get a hearing even when the evidence changes	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nej	i fokus ↑ · luk ✕
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✗ nej	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	✗ nej	diskutér
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✗ nej	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✗ nej	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✗ nej	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✗ nej	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✗ nej	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✗ nej	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✗ nej	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✗ nej	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✗ nej	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	✗ nej	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✗ nej	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✗ nej	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	✗ nej	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✗ nej	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	✗ nej	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	✗ nej	diskutér
Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✗ nej	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✗ nej	diskutér
There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✗ nej	diskutér
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✗ nej	diskutér
Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	→	There is no body whose job is to be wrong-footed early	✗ nej	diskutér
A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✗ nej	diskutér
A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	→	Being unable to reproduce a result is not itself publishable	✗ nej	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	A researcher who audits a funder's work loses the funder	✗ nej	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	A genuine critic and a bad-faith one look identical from a distance	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	✗ nej	diskutér
Peer review is three unpaid people on a deadline	→	So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	✗ nej	diskutér
So institutions treat all criticism as one category and answer none of it	→	Institutions investigate themselves and find nothing	✗ nej	diskutér
The reply is that release would be misinterpreted by the public	→	You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	✗ nej	diskutér
You cannot check a claim whose data is not released	→	Each revision is announced as if it were the position all along	✗ nej	diskutér