Maybe that's the lesson:
In an age of infinite information, we don't just need more data, we need data that withstands scrutiny, aligns with credible sources, and helps us build more accurate models of the world, not just more confident ones.

🔹 It helps us calibrate our own thinking around what we believe is true, by comparing our thoughts and assumptions to those of others.

🔹 And it helps everyone make better inferences about what is factual and true.

What the game reminded me is that having more of the right kind of data, the kind that has predictive power to uncover the truth (in this case, the true number assigned to each player), and that converges with other sources, helps everyone:

We're surrounded by a flood of data—news, posts, opinions, algorithmic suggestions—but quantity alone doesn't improve understanding. Unless those data points carry useful signal, they don’t help with calibration or inference. In fact, too many noisy or low-quality data points can make things worse.

🔹 Better context for players to calibrate their responses based on others’, and

🔹 Better signal for the question-asker to fine-tune their interpretation.

It made me think: what if we applied this logic to how we process information in real life?

What surprised me was that the game got easier with 9 players.
More players = more data points.
That helped in two key ways:

Here’s how it works:

One person asks a question.

Everyone else (with a unique number 1–10) gives an answer based on their number. Ideally something funny.

The asker tries to rank the answers from 1–10 based on how well they match the scale using inference.