5 ms·

While I correctly analysed the situation fully before calling it, I expected most of NYT's readers to use zero-step thinking. It turns out that they do one bett

by ssivark 11y ago

While I correctly analysed the situation fully before calling it, I expected most of NYT's readers to use zero-step thinking. It turns out that they do one better, so I guess I'm the typical NYT reader, in a sense. General comment: As different things get "strongly" coupled to each other, one needs to take more and more steps into account to get a reasonable answer. The question I have is this: Is there any way to figure out how many steps the other people in the situation will be using?

Nadya 11y ago
Most people are 1-2 step thinkers. [Citation Needed] But I'll explain why I think this: Many people will assume nobody will think about the problem (1 step thinkers). A few people will assume someone will think about the problem who thought about the people who won't think about the problem (2 step thinkers). I think most 3+ step thinkers will take the problem to it's most logical inclusion (making them n-step thinkers). Why stop arbitrarily at 3 or 4? They've recognized that people who exist who will think other people exist who thought about the problem. At that point they should be able to recognize that this pattern will continue to n. While I am sure there are 3->(n-1) thinkers, they'll be more rare than n-step thinkers, I'd reason. There are a number of 0 step thinkers who read the question and answered 33 though. Now I have a question: Is the person who answers 0 smarter than the people who happened to guess the right answer at the proper point of time, even if at the current time (and possibly indefinitely) they got the problem wrong? aka "I only got the answer wrong because other people didn't think hard enough."
- PretzelPirate 11y ago
  I was a 0-step thinker assuming that the majority of people doing this would pick random numbers bringing the average to 50. I expected that on a popular website that will likely get shared on Facebook, random would be the most likely outcome. I think I either underestimated how many people would share this on Facebook, or perhaps, the audience that will go to a New York Times page is different than the audience that will go to "Only geniuses will be able to get this..." type quizzes. Of course, it could be that HN skewed the results in favor of a true mathematical + predictive model.
- ixnu 11y ago
  This is similar to what I have found in poker. The tougher the game, the more steps that the opponents take. What cards do I have (1S), what does my opponent have (2S), what does my opponent think that I have (3S), and what do I think that my opponent thinks that I have (4S). I have found that beyond 4S, the analysis really loses its value even in the toughest games. Paradoxically, I have found these tools are a detriment to easier games because the game is dominated by 1S and 2S thinkers and a 4S analysis often results in the wrong conclusion.

by ssivark 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

Most people are 1-2 step thinkers. [Citation Needed] But I'll explain why I think this: Many people will assume nobody will think about the problem (1 step thinkers). A few people will assume someone will think about the problem who thought about the people who won't think about the problem (2 step thinkers). I think most 3+ step thinkers will take the problem to it's most logical inclusion (making them n-step thinkers). Why stop arbitrarily at 3 or 4? They've recognized that people who exist who will think other people exist who thought about the problem. At that point they should be able to recognize that this pattern will continue to n. While I am sure there are 3->(n-1) thinkers, they'll be more rare than n-step thinkers, I'd reason. There are a number of 0 step thinkers who read the question and answered 33 though. Now I have a question: Is the person who answers 0 smarter than the people who happened to guess the right answer at the proper point of time, even if at the current time (and possibly indefinitely) they got the problem wrong? aka "I only got the answer wrong because other people didn't think hard enough."

PretzelPirate 11y ago
I was a 0-step thinker assuming that the majority of people doing this would pick random numbers bringing the average to 50. I expected that on a popular website that will likely get shared on Facebook, random would be the most likely outcome. I think I either underestimated how many people would share this on Facebook, or perhaps, the audience that will go to a New York Times page is different than the audience that will go to "Only geniuses will be able to get this..." type quizzes. Of course, it could be that HN skewed the results in favor of a true mathematical + predictive model.
ixnu 11y ago
This is similar to what I have found in poker. The tougher the game, the more steps that the opponents take. What cards do I have (1S), what does my opponent have (2S), what does my opponent think that I have (3S), and what do I think that my opponent thinks that I have (4S). I have found that beyond 4S, the analysis really loses its value even in the toughest games. Paradoxically, I have found these tools are a detriment to easier games because the game is dominated by 1S and 2S thinkers and a 4S analysis often results in the wrong conclusion.