Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Selecting Rationalist Groups - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 April 2009 04:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 April 2009 05:28:31PM 9 points [-]

Heh - why should you know whether all the others are evil or not? How interesting would it be, if, by being pulled hard in different directions by liars who didn't know the others were lying, the spokesperson ended up with a more accurate estimate?

Comment author: ciphergoth 02 April 2009 09:57:03PM 3 points [-]

There's endless variety here, since this is essentially a form of Werewolf about real facts. I can't wait to play it.

Comment author: jimrandomh 02 April 2009 05:53:37PM 2 points [-]

Heh - why should you know whether all the others are evil or not?

Logistics. It isn't practical to have someone shuffle a deck if they aren't allowed to see any of the cards they're shuffling, so if you're using playing cards to assign roles, at least the dealer will know whether or not the players are all red.

One possible solution would be to have a PDA or smartphone assign the roles, and pass it around. If you do it this way, you could also have a small chance that one player is given the exact real answer. (But red players could falsely claim that they have it.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 April 2009 06:13:15PM 4 points [-]

Our version had one person (Robin Gane-McCalla) as central coordinator. Also, it's quite possible to shuffle small units of cards without seeing their undersides.