The triangulation effect with 3+ observers is fascinating, but there may be a weirder extension: what if the "third observer" isn't another person but the relationship coherence between two people?
Instead of three independent signals, you'd evaluate: given how Alice and Bob usually interact, does their agreement/disagreement pattern here tell you something? (E.g., if they're habitual contrarians, their agreement is the signal, not their disagreement.)
Take it further: human + LLM collaboration, where you measure the ongoing conversational dynamics—tone shifts, productive vs. circular disagreement, what gets bypassed, how contradictions are handled. The quality of the collaborative process itself becomes your truth signal.
You're not just aggregating independent observations anymore; you're reading the substrate of the interaction. The conversational structure as diagnostic.
Sailors in the past had a similar adage: “Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.” They relied on precise clocks to calculate longitude.
I think it is different in the continuous case though, because you can average two (reasonably accurate) chronometers and get a better measurement. But we can't average true and false, at least not in the context of this problem definition.
But the chronometers are will sync with each other if you don't store them apart, which would result correlated noise that an average won't fix.
It would be more straightforward to remove the permutations and just display the combinations and the symmetry between heads and tails. And solve it analytically Eg:
if p is the probability that the NPC is correct
P(A|AAAA) = p^4
P(A|BBBB) = (1-p)^4
Anyway, the apparent strangeness of the tie case comes from the fact that the binomial PMF is symmetric with respect to n (the number of participants) and n-k.
PMF = (n choose k) * p^k * (1-p)^(n-k)
So when k = n/2, the symmetry means that the likelihood is identical under p and 1-p, so we're not gaining any information. This is a really good illustration of that; interesting post! (edit: apparently i suck at formatting)
Bob isn't giving you any actionable information. If Alice and Bob agree, you're more confident than you were before, but you're still going to be trusting Alice. If they disagree you're down to 50% confidence, but you still might as well trust Alice.
To complete the circle, now that we have winnowed the space down to these options, we would normalize them and end up with 0.16 / (0.16 + 0.16) = 0.5 = 50% in both cases.
In voting parity matters. In some cases, effects are interesting - like in some cases if the mafia/werewolf game, when adding a citizen/villager decreses their winning chance by sqrt(pi/2), vide https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1031
F T (Alice)
F xx ????????
xx ????????
T ?? vvvvvvvv
?? vvvvvvvv
^ ?? vvvvvvvv
B ?? vvvvvvvv
o ?? vvvvvvvv
b ?? vvvvvvvv
v ?? vvvvvvvv
?? vvvvvvvv
(where "F" describes cases where the specified person tells you a Falsehood, and "T" labels the cases of that person telling you the Truth)
In the check-mark (v) region, you get the right answer regardless; they are both being truthful, and of course you trust them when they agree. Similarly you get the wrong answer regardless in the x region.
In the ? region you are no better than a coin flip, regardless of your strategy. If you unconditionally trust Alice then you win on the right-hand side, and lose on the left-hand side; and whatever Bob says is irrelevant. The situation for unconditionally trusting Bob is symmetrical (of course it is; they both act according to the same rules, on the same information). If you choose any other strategy, you still have a 50-50 chance, since Alice and Bob disagree and there is no reason to choose one over the other.
Since your odds don't change with your strategy in any of those regions of the probability space, they don't change overall.
Let's pretend Alice tells the truth 100% of the time, and Bob is still at 20%. It's more easy to intuit that Bob's contribution is only noise.
Slide Alice's accuracy down to 99% and, again, if you don't trust Alice, you're no better off trusting Bob.
Interestingly, this also happens as a feature of them being independent. If Bob told the truth 20% of the time that Alice told a lie, or if Bob simply copied Alice's response 20% of the time and otherwise told the truth, then the maths are different.
The betting-voting distinction is interesting and was on my mind while I was reading it.
So much of this breaks down when the binary nature of the variables involved becomes continuous or at least nonbinary.
It's an example of a more general interest of mine, how structural characteristics of an inferential scenario affect the value of information that is received.
I could also see this being relevant to diagnostic scenarios hypothetically.
I think there's an annoying thing where by saying "hey, here's this neat problem, what's the answer" I've made you much more likely to actually get the answer!
What I really wanted to do was transfer the experience of writing a simulation for a related problem, observing this result, assuming I had a bug in my code, and then being delighted when I did the math. But unfortunately I don't know how to transfer that experience over the internet :(
(to be clear, I'm totally happy you wrote out the probabilities and got it right! Just expressing something I was thinking about back when I wrote this blog)
I, erroneously, thought that "when Alice and Bob agree there's a 96% chance of them being correct, then surely you can leverage this to get above the 80% chance. What if we trust them both when they agree and trust Alice when they disagree?" Did some (erroneous) napkin math and went to write a simulation.
As I was writing the simulation I realized my error. I finished the simulation anyway, just because, and it has the expected 80% result on both of them.
My error: when we trust "both" we're also trusting Alice, which means that my case was exactly the same as just trusting Alice.
PS as I was writing the simulation I did a small sanity test of 9 rolls: I rolled heads 9 times in a row (so I tried it again with 100 million and it was a ~50-50 split). There goes my chance of winning the lottery!
It depends on what you are doing with the guess. If it is just a question of how frequently you are right or wrong the second person doesn't help. But if you are, for example, betting on your guess the second person improves your odds of coming out ahead significantly, since you can put down a higher wager when they agree than when they disagree.
This kinda reminds me of error correction, and where at some level you can have detectable but not correctable error conditions. Adding Bob is just like adding a parity bit: can give you a good indication someone lied, but won't fix anything. Adding Charlie gives you the crudest ECC form, a repetition code (though for storing one bit, I don't think you can do better?)
I guess if you only need to store one bit you could store either 0 or 11 and on average use less than two bits (for bit flips only), or 111 if you have to also worry about losing/duplicating bits.
One way to think about this is you have a binomial distribution with p=0.8 and n=number of lying friends. Each time you increase n, you shift the probability mass of the distribution "to the right" but if n is even some of that mass has to land on the "tie" condition.
The second liar often gives you information you never wanted! But that is offset by the excellent information of when the liars agree. Fascinating.
I didnt't math during the thinking pause, but my intuition was a second liar makes it worse (more likey to end up 50-50 situation) and additional liars make it better as you get to reduce noise.
Is there a scenario where the extra liar makes it worse, you would be better yelling lalalallala as they tell you the answer?
Instead of three independent signals, you'd evaluate: given how Alice and Bob usually interact, does their agreement/disagreement pattern here tell you something? (E.g., if they're habitual contrarians, their agreement is the signal, not their disagreement.)
Take it further: human + LLM collaboration, where you measure the ongoing conversational dynamics—tone shifts, productive vs. circular disagreement, what gets bypassed, how contradictions are handled. The quality of the collaborative process itself becomes your truth signal.
You're not just aggregating independent observations anymore; you're reading the substrate of the interaction. The conversational structure as diagnostic.
But the chronometers are will sync with each other if you don't store them apart, which would result correlated noise that an average won't fix.
When it comes to the wisdom of crowds, see https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/two-heads-are-bett...
In the check-mark (v) region, you get the right answer regardless; they are both being truthful, and of course you trust them when they agree. Similarly you get the wrong answer regardless in the x region.
In the ? region you are no better than a coin flip, regardless of your strategy. If you unconditionally trust Alice then you win on the right-hand side, and lose on the left-hand side; and whatever Bob says is irrelevant. The situation for unconditionally trusting Bob is symmetrical (of course it is; they both act according to the same rules, on the same information). If you choose any other strategy, you still have a 50-50 chance, since Alice and Bob disagree and there is no reason to choose one over the other.
Since your odds don't change with your strategy in any of those regions of the probability space, they don't change overall.
Slide Alice's accuracy down to 99% and, again, if you don't trust Alice, you're no better off trusting Bob.
Interestingly, this also happens as a feature of them being independent. If Bob told the truth 20% of the time that Alice told a lie, or if Bob simply copied Alice's response 20% of the time and otherwise told the truth, then the maths are different.
So much of this breaks down when the binary nature of the variables involved becomes continuous or at least nonbinary.
It's an example of a more general interest of mine, how structural characteristics of an inferential scenario affect the value of information that is received.
I could also see this being relevant to diagnostic scenarios hypothetically.
I think there's an annoying thing where by saying "hey, here's this neat problem, what's the answer" I've made you much more likely to actually get the answer!
What I really wanted to do was transfer the experience of writing a simulation for a related problem, observing this result, assuming I had a bug in my code, and then being delighted when I did the math. But unfortunately I don't know how to transfer that experience over the internet :(
(to be clear, I'm totally happy you wrote out the probabilities and got it right! Just expressing something I was thinking about back when I wrote this blog)
As I was writing the simulation I realized my error. I finished the simulation anyway, just because, and it has the expected 80% result on both of them.
My error: when we trust "both" we're also trusting Alice, which means that my case was exactly the same as just trusting Alice.
PS as I was writing the simulation I did a small sanity test of 9 rolls: I rolled heads 9 times in a row (so I tried it again with 100 million and it was a ~50-50 split). There goes my chance of winning the lottery!
I wrote a quick colab to help visualize this, adds a little intuition for what's happening: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1EytLeBfAoOAanVNFnWQ...
I didnt't math during the thinking pause, but my intuition was a second liar makes it worse (more likey to end up 50-50 situation) and additional liars make it better as you get to reduce noise.
Is there a scenario where the extra liar makes it worse, you would be better yelling lalalallala as they tell you the answer?