3 ms·

How on earth does a list of 40 people that’s never written down maintain any sort of resistance to “Telephone”/“Chinese Whispers” errors?

SkyMarshal 4y ago
Good question. Maybe: 1) People who have been around a while already know most or all of it, while people new to the scene know none or little of it. 2) It's never whispered all at the same time, but rather one or a few at a time when the circumstance calls for it, kind of like a distributed consensus algorithm gradually coming to consensus. Also, easier to recall parts of the list when in the physical vicinity of people on it. 3) The newbies learn the whole thing gradually, not all at once.
asoneth 4y ago
In addition to the other answers given: If a name is erroneously omitted from the list then a subsequent incident would presumably re-add the offender. If a name is incorrectly included on the list (accidentally or maliciously) then there could be a decay function if reports include a timeframe and/or confidence level. For example, if the last report of bad behavior was third-hand and years ago and no one has heard corroborating reports since then then individuals may choose to de-prioritize or drop that name from the lists they transmit. It may also be the case that the list is not particularly resistant to transmission errors and yet may still be accurate enough to provide value to the people using it.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Or not at all. The list serves to alienate certain people and prevent them from becoming competitive or developing networks. The negatives of this kind of behavior are equal to the supposed benefits
  - asoneth 4y ago
    > Or not at all If the list is not at all accurate I doubt it would propagate as well or as long because an entirely inaccurate list provides negative value to its recipients by giving them a false sense of security that will be eventually dispelled when they realize their personal experience does not correlate with the list. I would be more concerned about a list that is sufficiently accurate to ensure continued propagation while still containing harmful inaccuracies. > The negatives of this kind of behavior are equal to the supposed benefits Whether the harm caused by inaccurate warnings exceeds the harm avoided by the accurate warnings seems subjective because these harms are different and impact different people. It would also be hard to assess without knowing the actual ratio of accurate to inaccurate warnings. But regardless of whether these kinds of lists cause net harm overall, individuals will continue to share warnings as long as doing so provides net value to them. Outlawing rumors is something not even totalitarian regimes have managed to do, so the only solution I can think of would be to ensure that the alternate methods of addressing problematic behavior are more attractive to people than resorting to rumors.

SkyMarshal 4y ago

Good question. Maybe: 1) People who have been around a while already know most or all of it, while people new to the scene know none or little of it. 2) It's never whispered all at the same time, but rather one or a few at a time when the circumstance calls for it, kind of like a distributed consensus algorithm gradually coming to consensus. Also, easier to recall parts of the list when in the physical vicinity of people on it. 3) The newbies learn the whole thing gradually, not all at once.

asoneth 4y ago

In addition to the other answers given: If a name is erroneously omitted from the list then a subsequent incident would presumably re-add the offender. If a name is incorrectly included on the list (accidentally or maliciously) then there could be a decay function if reports include a timeframe and/or confidence level. For example, if the last report of bad behavior was third-hand and years ago and no one has heard corroborating reports since then then individuals may choose to de-prioritize or drop that name from the lists they transmit. It may also be the case that the list is not particularly resistant to transmission errors and yet may still be accurate enough to provide value to the people using it.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
Or not at all. The list serves to alienate certain people and prevent them from becoming competitive or developing networks. The negatives of this kind of behavior are equal to the supposed benefits
- asoneth 4y ago
  > Or not at all If the list is not at all accurate I doubt it would propagate as well or as long because an entirely inaccurate list provides negative value to its recipients by giving them a false sense of security that will be eventually dispelled when they realize their personal experience does not correlate with the list. I would be more concerned about a list that is sufficiently accurate to ensure continued propagation while still containing harmful inaccuracies. > The negatives of this kind of behavior are equal to the supposed benefits Whether the harm caused by inaccurate warnings exceeds the harm avoided by the accurate warnings seems subjective because these harms are different and impact different people. It would also be hard to assess without knowing the actual ratio of accurate to inaccurate warnings. But regardless of whether these kinds of lists cause net harm overall, individuals will continue to share warnings as long as doing so provides net value to them. Outlawing rumors is something not even totalitarian regimes have managed to do, so the only solution I can think of would be to ensure that the alternate methods of addressing problematic behavior are more attractive to people than resorting to rumors.