121–130 of 183 posts
This re-maps everyone’s choices so they actually have no idea what number they are actually choosing and efficiently redistributes the bias in their choices without massively complicated functions. It is also robust to changes in the distribution pattern. However it would only work well if you had at least 10 people and the number of people is divisible by 10.
Or just carry a coin-like flippable object. (Cell phone?)
Put everyone in a numbered sequence unknown to them. Add their chosen number to their sequence number, mod 10. This re-maps everyone’s choices so they actually have no idea what number they are actually choosing and efficiently redistributes the bias in their choices without massively complicated functions. It is also robust to changes in the distribution pattern. However it would only work well if you had at least 1…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-square_method
It can be trivially calculated with pencil and a paper and will be random enough. You just need to pick a seed and off you go.
If it was good enough for Von Neumann it is good enough for you.
Put everyone in a numbered sequence unknown to them. Add their chosen number to their sequence number, mod 10. This re-maps everyone’s choices so they actually have no idea what number they are actually choosing and efficiently redistributes the bias in their choices without massively complicated functions. It is also robust to changes in the distribution pattern. However it would only work well if you had at least 1…
Wouldn't putting "everyone in a numbered sequence unknown to them" require a random number, which we don't have?
Put everyone in a numbered sequence unknown to them. Add their chosen number to their sequence number, mod 10. This re-maps everyone’s choices so they actually have no idea what number they are actually choosing and efficiently redistributes the bias in their choices without massively complicated functions. It is also robust to changes in the distribution pattern. However it would only work well if you had at least 1…
Wouldn't putting "everyone in a numbered sequence unknown to them" require a random number, which we don't have?
No, because that ordering can be chosen by someone not in the sequence.
How about 1 person labels 10 people 1 thru 10 and another person not knowing how they're labeled chooses 1 of those people edit: the first person labels the 10 in a jumbled up way, then the 10 people not knowing how they are labeled then jumble themselves up
This seems like it could work pretty well. It would be interesting to try it out. I see two possible sources of bias: 1. The way in which a person labels the others won't be random. And multiple people may exhibit the same pattern. For example, let's say that people are biased towards trying to label an "average" person as #1. This might be based on height, weight, attractiveness, etc. Then a given person may have an…
edit: but then it gets to where you may as well just put the numbers in a hat :P
Put everyone in a numbered sequence unknown to them. Add their chosen number to their sequence number, mod 10. This re-maps everyone’s choices so they actually have no idea what number they are actually choosing and efficiently redistributes the bias in their choices without massively complicated functions. It is also robust to changes in the distribution pattern. However it would only work well if you had at least 1…
Wouldn't putting "everyone in a numbered sequence unknown to them" require a random number, which we don't have?
Yes. The above answer just obfuscates the issue. Consider ten people overwhelmingly biased towards 7. The suggested approach in all likelihood gets you 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Then what? You're clearly not much closer to getting a single random number without a random way of picking one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand. Humans aren't like weighted dice. For example, it's certainly conceivable that a few pairs of these humans misunderstand the goal such that they have a 0% chance of ever choosing numbers that change the respective ordering. Add to that the higher probability that many of these pairs of humans will just toggle their orders each round. Edit: clarification-- the humans don't even have to misun…
That's a good point, I guess you have to also randomly choose the humans?