Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Carpe DM" data-source="post: 1842613" data-attributes="member: 677">Thanks, I appreciate it.  We all feel snarky sometimes.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Now, let me try to respond a bit on the substance of the matter.1.  What I posted is a version of the Condorcet Jury Theorem, which is a theory worked out in the field of Public Choice.  Here's the basic idea.  Why do we like juries, or, why do we like decisions made by groups of people?  Well, it turns out that groups of people have a magnifying effect on accuracy. To do the math, let's say we're trying to decide a close issue.  On close issues let's say we each have a 51% chance of getting it right: that is, we're only *slightly* more likely than not to get it right.Now the idea becomes clear: I, personally, may be only 51% likely to get an issue right, whereas I am 49% likely to get it wrong.  But 12 people are much less likely to get it wrong overall (their consistent average will be weighted toward the 51 not the 49), and 1000 people will very nearly never get it wrong.So, on close issues, should one person decide, 12 people decide, or 1000 people decide?  Well, the CJT says you opt for the largest decision-making group.Now, concededly: some of the conditions for CJT may not obtain in any given scenario. Specifically, if a person believes he or she is much smarter than everyone else, he is unlikely to believe that using CJT gets to the right result better: if I am 99% likely to get it right, and everyone else is 51% likely, I will probably rely on my own judgment and not the group's.But I, personally, don't believe I'm much smarter than everyone else who plays this game. So I rely on the CJT.2.  Information encodingAll right, this part comes from legislative theory.  Here's the idea.  The doctrine of unintended consequences is a constant.  In complex systems, an alteration in one portion of the system usually has system-wide effects not immediately discernable.Which means that to a person ex ante considering changes in the system, that person will rarely be able to discern all ex post effects of the changes.  Whereas rules that are hammered out over time and in community often reflect an understanding of downstream effects. In short, I've often seen houserules have unintended effects that cause more houserules, that cause more unintended effects, that cause MORE houserules...and you get the picture.In sum:Understanding group accuracy effects and understanding how to avoid unintended consequences does not mean just being a follower.  If you think you know more than the group, sure, change the rules.  You're more likely to be right.best,Carpe</blockquote>

Verification