구조 잡기 · Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

질문

Why does a lie travel further than the truth?

한쪽이 다른 쪽에 크게 영향을 줍니까? 던진 표의 4분의 3으로 정합니다.

게스트로 보는 중. 참여하려면 닉네임을 입력하세요.

질문은 그룹별로 나뉘어, 내 그룹이 받은 질문만 나옵니다. 전체 162개가 다 나오지는 않습니다.

이유

수백 개의 쌍을 혼자 답할 수는 없습니다. 각 쌍은 한 그룹에 갑니다. 의견이 갈린 쌍은 다른 그룹에 넘어가므로, 다른 곳에서 시작한 쌍이 나중에 내 목록에 나올 수 있습니다. 확정된 수에는 모든 그룹의 작업이 들어가므로, 내 목록이 줄어드는 것보다 빨리 늘어납니다.

확정 161 / 162 내가 답할 질문 0개

지난 집계: 결정 161 · 그룹 간 패널로 넘김 0 · 이견 있음 0 · 최소 인원 미달 1 — 패널마다 던진 표가 최소 max(2, 패널의 75%) 필요합니다. 가장 작은 패널의 멤버는 15명입니다.

닫기 ✕

A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed → 영향을 주나? → Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported

아직 아무 말도 없습니다.

끝난 단계입니다. 쌍과 투표 기록은 위에 있습니다.논리 확인 ↗

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