Are you smarter than 45,802 other New York Times Readers?
August 13, 2015 7:37 PM   Subscribe

 
The answer, in my case, is no.
posted by Windigo at 7:43 PM on August 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


Nope! No, I am not.
posted by brecc at 7:43 PM on August 13, 2015


My guess of the Nash eq # (0) is wrong, and I got 850 words on why I can't think far enough ahead.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:45 PM on August 13, 2015 [28 favorites]


I too have a mind like John Nash.

Uh-oh.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:46 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


My guess of the Nash eq # (0) is wrong, and I got 850 words on why I can't think far enough ahead.

Actually, you thought too far ahead.

My guess was 3 less than the (current) correct answer; the 85th percentile. Although, the two previous contests held by The Financial Times eventually had answers lower than what I guessed.
posted by Rangi at 7:47 PM on August 13, 2015


Same here!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 7:47 PM on August 13, 2015


Are you smarter than 45,802 other New York Times Readers?

oh, sorry, I thought this was the point of the game.
posted by valkane at 7:47 PM on August 13, 2015


Given that the circulation of the New York times in September 2014 was 1,379,806, and that I am at least of average intelligence, yes, I am smarter than 45,802 New York Times readers. Not this subset though.

I'm rather curious about the spike around 33.
posted by solarion at 7:48 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


Should the equilibrium number not be 1? Assuming we are rounding to the nearest whole number, 2/3 of 1 is 1.
posted by ssg at 7:48 PM on August 13, 2015 [5 favorites]


I'm smarter than 86% of them, but I guessed, which means I'm fatigued and should never play the stock market and probably shouldn't even try to get the bigger burrito at Chipotle.
posted by betweenthebars at 7:48 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm rather curious about the spike around 33.

Those people think one step ahead and take two-thirds of 50, which is the expected average of a bunch of random numbers from 1 to 100. There's a smaller spike at 22 for those who think two steps ahead. I don't know what the spike at 66 is about.
posted by Rangi at 7:49 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


1 here. Kind of surprised the answer isn't lower that what it is.
posted by clorox at 7:50 PM on August 13, 2015


Not only did I get it within 1, I was pretty accurate in my mental picture of what the distribution of guesses would be! You teach math for 15 years, you get a pretty good sense of how people think about numbers.
posted by escabeche at 7:51 PM on August 13, 2015 [7 favorites]


I went with 50, and the explanation overestimated how much thought I actually put into it. I think by minimizing the amount of effort I put into this experiment, to resume focusing my energy on drinking wine and eating cheese, I have in fact both outsmarted participants who did not do that and am also able to display that at times I can be an excellent stereotype of what people imagine New York Times readers do with their time.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:52 PM on August 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


For once in my life, I'll accept the 77th percentile as a victory.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:52 PM on August 13, 2015


headline: R U SMRTER THAN EVERYONE
me: hell yes i am
me: *opens page*
me: liz you don't even understand the question
posted by poffin boffin at 7:52 PM on August 13, 2015 [29 favorites]


and then i wildly guessed and i'm a fucking genius
posted by poffin boffin at 7:52 PM on August 13, 2015 [6 favorites]


Metafilter:
headline: R U SMRTER THAN EVERYONE
me: hell yes i am
me: *opens page*

posted by solarion at 7:56 PM on August 13, 2015 [6 favorites]


So basically one could infer the closest answer by modeling the distribution of stupid answers, being those five peaks in the graph.

In contrast, if the game were played by hypothetical purely rational logicians, the answer would be 0. That, or undefined.
posted by polymodus at 8:00 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


Huh, if I thought about it more I'd have corrected down for the fact that people would be (earnestly or not) picking one and zero. I got as far as correctly assuming most people would pick 33, but I guess I figured if you'd be smart enough to realize the k-step process ends at zero you'd also be playing earnestly enough to realize it obviously wouldn't be zero in this situation.
posted by Nomiconic at 8:01 PM on August 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


The challenge isn't being smarter than other NYTimes readers. The challenge is guess how dumb NYTimes readers are (i.e. how far from the Nash # they will be). I overestimated the intelligence of NYTimes readers, and so I was way off. If the poll was limited to Metafilter readers I think we'd end up pretty close to the Nash number.
posted by alms at 8:02 PM on August 13, 2015 [13 favorites]


95% percentile!!

But only because my sausage fingers hit a "2" instead of "1"
posted by helmutdog at 8:02 PM on August 13, 2015


On top of that, we have to ask – why pick 72? Are you some kind of math prankster? It’s possible you misunderstood the question (if so, we apologize). But think about it: 72 can never be two-thirds of the average of everyone’s guesses. Even if everyone guessed 100, the average, once rounded, would be 67.

... yes definitely

it's not that i'm just really bad at understanding math problems

it's that i'm a math prankster
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:03 PM on August 13, 2015 [9 favorites]


“Your guess, while not a winner, was better than those of 95 percent of all readers. Take a bow.”
posted by ob1quixote at 8:04 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


92nd percentile. Thought two steps ahead and guesstimated. Easily could've been off by a larger margin even thinking ahead the same number of steps.
posted by Ickster at 8:07 PM on August 13, 2015


The challenge is guess how dumb NYTimes readers are (i.e. how far from the Nash # they will be). I overestimated the intelligence of NYTimes readers, and so I was way off

One person's k-step rationality is just being deeply thoughtful, but to another person it is thinking too much about things.
posted by polymodus at 8:12 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


I don't know what the spike at 66 is about
I assume this is somewhat equivalent to 2/3 of 100 (should be 67, I guess).

In fact, I actually assumed that most people would pick 66 and therefore I picked 2/3 of that.
But it's clear that I thought wrong.
I also suck at chess.
posted by bitteroldman at 8:12 PM on August 13, 2015


1 away! 95th percentile! I feel oddly affirmed. It's irrational, but I'll take it.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:13 PM on August 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


One person's k-step rationality is just being deeply thoughtful, but to another person it is thinking too much about things.

Something something iocaine powder.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:14 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


I lost by overestimating the intelligence of my competitors. Humanity has disappointed me once again. :(
posted by vorpal bunny at 8:14 PM on August 13, 2015


I lost by overestimating the intelligence of my competitors. Humanity has disappointed me once again.

As with so many human endeavors, there are two good paths to victory: be a little dumb, or realize that most everyone else is.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:17 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


My 17yo daughter just did this; guessed 66. Gave her the ol' (>ლ)
posted by Ickster at 8:17 PM on August 13, 2015


Just 1 away here, using pure intuition. Sometimes gut feelings work, I guess.
posted by wanderingmind at 8:21 PM on August 13, 2015


Your answer means you took this problem to its logical conclusion. Unfortunately for you, most other players did not, which means I'M SMARTER THAN ALL THOSE OTHER BOZOS
posted by exogenous at 8:23 PM on August 13, 2015


The challenge is guess how dumb NYTimes readers are (i.e. how far from the Nash # they will be). I overestimated the intelligence of NYTimes readers, and so I was way off

Smart enough to figure out the Nash equilibrium.
Smart enough to know many others are not smart enough to figure out the Nash equilibrium.
Not smart enough to model their dumbness.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:24 PM on August 13, 2015 [5 favorites]


I guessed very poorly. In my defense, I have a cold!
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 8:29 PM on August 13, 2015


Classic example of levels.
posted by mikeand1 at 8:30 PM on August 13, 2015


Just 1 away! Now I feel good about myself tee hee :-)
posted by FireFountain at 8:31 PM on August 13, 2015


I love these interactive puzzles. Remember the one from a few weeks ago with the soccer balls photoshopped out? You had to guess where the ball was based on where the eyes of the players were looking. The distance ranking also scored you as % better than everyone else, I think the author used Voronoi diagrams. I saw it on Hacker News, maybe someone else has a link.
posted by oceanjesse at 8:34 PM on August 13, 2015


Stupid New York Times. YOU'RE a K2
posted by Bonzai at 8:36 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


Team 22!!!!!

Your guess is particularly interesting to economists and game theorists alike.

yeaaaah buddddyyyyyyyy
posted by sallybrown at 8:37 PM on August 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


I picked the exact average, which means I was off by a third. That must mean something. Somewhere.
posted by bentley at 8:37 PM on August 13, 2015


Right-click -> View Source? Or Inspect Element?

yes i definitely cheated on an online test when i didn't even understand the question involved and definitely did not decide to guess a certain very close number due to the fact that i was listening to dancing queen

you have figured me right the heck out broseph
posted by poffin boffin at 8:51 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


Off by one, 95th percentile. I feel ok about this and am going to bed.
posted by Songdog at 8:54 PM on August 13, 2015


If you can guess where a roulette wheel lands, does that mean you are smarter than a roulette wheel?
posted by RobotHero at 8:54 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


Am I smarter that the person who wrote that headline that thinks intelligence is a strictly linear quantity? Definitely.
posted by JHarris at 9:05 PM on August 13, 2015


If you can guess where a roulette wheel lands, does that mean you are smarter than a roulette wheel?

i want to add "potentially smarter than a piece of wood" to my resume now
posted by poffin boffin at 9:07 PM on August 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


Huh, looks like a whole lot of NYT readers gave the wrong answer.
posted by figurant at 9:14 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


I figured a whole bunch of people would be influenced by the examples they gave in asking the question and not think about it more deeply than that, so I gave an answer based on the average of those numbers, and then fudged it downward for the people who probably guessed a number between 1 and 10 because they were too lazy to type more digits.

There's an interesting sort of version of this kind of thinking that is part of the pre-movie quiz at Cineplex theaters. One of the question styles is to pick a movie, and if you pick the movie that the majority of other players in the audience picks you get points for that question. So it's not a question of your personal taste in movies, so much as it is an attempt to determine the general taste in movies in the room. Except of course that if everyone is doing that, it becomes about trying to figure out what movie most people will think that most people will pick. Which ends up just being 'whatever is from Marvel' in practice, but in theory is a much more interesting question.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:22 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


I read that whole article, and frankly I still don't think they fully explained why 1 was the incorrect answer. Basically, I feel like guesses of zero or 1 should give you a different explanation article, or at least an honorable mention. /resents "you weren't even close" message
posted by likeatoaster at 9:35 PM on August 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


"You were extremely close...Your guess, while not a winner, was better than those of 95 percent of all readers. Take a bow."

This is me taking a bow. It says something about how my week has been that this actually made me feel a little proud. Yeesh.
posted by town of cats at 9:40 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


Are you smarter than 45,802 other New York Times Readers?

I think about this every morning when I refuse to buy an nyt. So much smarter.
posted by hal_c_on at 9:47 PM on August 13, 2015 [5 favorites]


I resent the author calling me a K-step-1 thinker when really all I was doing was assuming almost everyone would misunderstand the question and guess "50".
posted by mmoncur at 9:48 PM on August 13, 2015


Guessing zero definitely gives different text; it was my first pick, and it told me I was wrong but beautifully wrong.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:04 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


I put in zero because if everyone puts in zero we can all jointly win. It's not only the nash equilibrium, but also the only moral choice.
posted by Pyry at 10:08 PM on August 13, 2015 [15 favorites]


I picked 22, for exactly the reason that they said I would, the whole k step 2 thing. It didn't occur to me that a bunch of other people would also pick 22 for the same reason, and push the average down from 33.

My NYT Internet quiz level: Pretty good!
posted by no mind at 10:17 PM on August 13, 2015


I read that whole article, and frankly I still don't think they fully explained why 1 was the incorrect answer. Basically, I feel like guesses of zero or 1 should give you a different explanation article, or at least an honorable mention. /resents "you weren't even close" message

As someone who guessed "2" and also got "not even close":

The explanation as to why we are wrong is simply that when you take the average of all the guesses and multiply by .67 the answer is way off. We failed at the task they gave us pretty badly so not sure we deserve anything. (I will admit my first reaction to being that far off was to construct a story as to how I am smarter than I thought, which doesn't really make sense. Except maybe compared to the people who guessed 75.)

As the article says, zero is the stable answer, and if the same people played every day we'd eventually end up very close to that number. That wasn't the rules of the game, though. We were supposed to guess what people did on the first guess and we messed up.
posted by mark k at 10:30 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


3 points of the pace, but I wonder if in a week or two I'll be right, and then after another month wrong again.
posted by Neale at 10:31 PM on August 13, 2015


I put in zero because if everyone puts in zero we can all jointly win. It's not only the nash equilibrium, but also the only moral choice.

Heh, at first I thought "0" and then remembered that like 2% of people know what a Nash equilibrium is and picked 22 for the reasons the article then went on to explain. I underestimated NYT readers, but only a little :)

It would be really interesting to see how this game plays out using different user bases, cultures, communities, etc.
posted by Reyturner at 10:43 PM on August 13, 2015


I wonder what they seeded this puzzle with -- the very first average. It makes a difference, right?

Say there was a physical lineup of people waiting to go into a room to give their guess. Say I was person #5 and could see that the four people in front of me were smart and were going to get the right answer.

- If they seeded the average with 50...
* Person 1's correct answer would be 33
* Person 2's correct answer would be 22
* Person 3's correct answer would be 15
* Person 4's correct answer would be 10
* My correct answer would be 7

- If they seeded the average with 100...
* Person 1's correct answer would be 66
* Person 2's correct answer would be 44
* Person 3's correct answer would be 30
* Person 4's correct answer would be 20
* My correct answer would be 13

Big difference between 7 and 13! How was I to get the right answer in this toy example if they didn't tell me what the seeded average was?

It becomes harder to think through when 10s of thousands of people have guessed. I knew it would tend toward 0, but also knew it wouldn't be at 0. After that I didn't have a clue how to reason about it, so I just typed the first plausible idea that came to mind. In hindsight it wasn't a very good guess, but I still don't know how I would have arrived at 19 aside from dumb luck...
posted by mantecol at 10:54 PM on August 13, 2015


Huh, I turns out I am one step ahead of most NYT readers. Overestimating their smarts, that's where I go wrong (actually, now you come to mention it...)
posted by AFII at 11:29 PM on August 13, 2015


One off the right answer. Decided to go for a basic "well it won't be 50, so it'll be lower. It definitely won't be 0, because some people will say higher than that. So lets go wiiiith THAT one" which is about as rational as one can get with these sort of tests I think.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:14 AM on August 14, 2015


And your guess, 22, represents two-thirds of that. This is an example of what the economist Colin Camerer has called “k-step” thinking (more on that in a minute). For you, k is 2: you are thinking two steps ahead.

Um, two steps ahead, of course. That is definitely what I was thinking and not anything else.
posted by eggplantplacebo at 12:18 AM on August 14, 2015


Exactly my method Cannon, and then it's luck as to where you land between about 15-25. I got super lucky!
posted by Braeburn at 12:20 AM on August 14, 2015


I Nashed it too. Would have thought that 45k+ people would have led to Nash equilibrium but I guess I'm overestimating people. Thought I was over that long ago. Huh.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 12:49 AM on August 14, 2015


Heh. I was off by 1, but I cheated -- I've introduced this game to groups of students many times, so I know what typically happens. (And a significant part of what typically happens is that some joker picks 99.)

What's really instructive is to play the game several times in a row with the same group of kids. They figure out the Nash equilibrium thing all on their own.

The winner is the one who realizes that some joker is still going to pick 99, though.
posted by aws17576 at 12:57 AM on August 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


Somehow reminded me of this:

"Pick a number between 0 and 100."
"Ummh ... 27."
"Wrong."
posted by sour cream at 1:22 AM on August 14, 2015


"Yes Lisa, Daddy's a k-step thinker."
"But you only guessed for k=1!"
"D'OH!"
posted by obiwanwasabi at 1:48 AM on August 14, 2015


1 off, better than 95%. I somehow feel like a moron for participating, though.
posted by Segundus at 2:24 AM on August 14, 2015


Yeah, I picked 1 on the grounds that it would trend toward 0, but I was assuming for some reason that it would round up from .67 to 1 and thus get stuck there without going lower. I also assumed that 45K was enough for it to get pretty close to the bottom if not at the bottom.

Wrong on both counts.

On the other hand, this is well in character. When I play strategy-type games with hidden information, I almost always overthink and outsmart myself by playing the counter to the counter to the counter to the counter to my best/most obvious strategy, and then it turns out that my opponent wasn't even aware I had a best strategy.
posted by Scattercat at 2:39 AM on August 14, 2015


I was only one over the correct answer, but I was just finger-in-the-air guessing. The examples in the test instructions must influence the results.
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:31 AM on August 14, 2015


Those who chose the Nash equilibrium are missing that it's only a reasonable guess for a version in which players are allowed to continually change their current answer. For the current version of the game, choosing zero (or 1) is a patently bad response, no?
posted by nobody at 5:06 AM on August 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


I am smarter than everyone, including myself.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:43 AM on August 14, 2015


I'm going to be honest, whenever anyone has a number puzzle I usually just default to trying 0, 1, or -1
posted by taromsn at 6:33 AM on August 14, 2015


The best part of this kind of thing is how widely people's actual reported reasoning processes diverge from the reasoning suggested in the "explanation" from social psychologists and behavioural economists. This is why social science is pretty much a wash.
posted by Dr. Send at 6:37 AM on August 14, 2015


This is why social science is pretty much a wash.

Surprisingly, the purpose of the social sciences is not actually to play guesswork about what people think about themselves.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 6:41 AM on August 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


I played this game in a a game theory class in grad school and lost because some moron guessed 80 and moved the average a few points higher than my guess. I'm still PO'd about it and that was 10 years ago...

I guessed 0 knowing it was the theoretical solution but also knowing I'd be wrong.
posted by Farce_First at 7:06 AM on August 14, 2015


Betteridge's law applied to me.
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:25 AM on August 14, 2015


> I guess I figured if you'd be smart enough to realize the k-step process ends at zero you'd also be playing earnestly enough to realize it obviously wouldn't be zero in this situation.

Well I did actually think this through, and decided that once enough people figured out that the correct answer is zero, the average would drop to a small integer (never zero, thanks to all the random guessers) and so I guessed 1.

Not close, not even in the right ballpark or the right county.

That's what I get for overestimating the intelligence of my fellow NYT readers I guess. :(
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:44 AM on August 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


What's sinking in for me is that this experiment relates to how much people think about how their actions affect others, and that Donald Trump is leading in the Republican polls.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:45 AM on August 14, 2015


> Well I did actually think this through, and decided that once enough people figured out that the correct answer is zero, the average would drop to a small integer

The "correct answer" is not zero, the correct answer is whatever it is, which in this case is way far from zero (and very close to what I guessed). They're not asking a question about the fucking Nash number, they're asking a question about NYTimes readers. Talk about nerdview.
posted by languagehat at 8:45 AM on August 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


I am satisfied that my ability to anticipate the actions of random people on the internet made up for my lack of facility with numbers and got me two away from the correct answer.
posted by restless_nomad at 9:34 AM on August 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


> The "correct answer" is not zero, the correct answer is whatever it is ... Talk about nerdview.

Pardon my lack of careful phrasing. Yes, I should have said, I expected more people to figure out that the Nash equilibrium was at 0 and pick accordingly. As I said, I clearly overestimated how much NYT readers would think about this.

"Nerdview" is an interesting term, though.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:36 AM on August 14, 2015


I picked 22 (going 2 steps), not realizing so many people would pick the "mathematical" answer of 0 and skew it lower.

It's interesting how different the NYT distribution looks compared to the Financial Times distribution, which had almost no guesses of 50 or 33 (the "superficial" answer and the "one-step" answer), tons of zeroes ("mathematician" answer), and plenty of jokers around 100. Their winning number was 12.

I wonder what the Mefi number is?
posted by pravit at 10:03 AM on August 14, 2015


Not only did I get it wrong I got it so wrong that the beginning of the explanation was basically "Why did you even pick that what are you stupid?" Yes. Yes I am.
posted by billiebee at 10:27 AM on August 14, 2015


> "Nerdview" is an interesting term, though.

It's a great term; I got it from Language Log, but I don't know whether they invented it or just picked it up and ran with it.
posted by languagehat at 10:42 AM on August 14, 2015


If there's one thing more reliable than the winning number in this game, it's that people who went too low will say they "overestimated their competitors".
posted by aws17576 at 11:09 AM on August 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


I picked 20, on the grounds that theoretically the thing ought to go to zero but there would likely be enough dumbasses responding to keep the result hauled up some.
You were extremely close. So far, the average of all numbers has been 28, which means two-thirds of the average is 19 and your entry of 20 is close to the mark. Your guess, while not a winner, was better than those of 95 percent of all readers. Take a bow.
Close enough for rock and roll.
posted by flabdablet at 11:14 AM on August 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


I chose 0 yesterday, and I'm sticking with it. If they let it run long enough, it will eventually get down there, even with no replays allowed.

In terms of k-step thinking, even beyond finding the equilibrium, there is another meta k-step process. With rounding, 1 and 0 are both equilibria. If everyone converged on 1, it would indeed be Nash stable, and everyone would be best off guessing 1 forever more. However, it is impossible to know ahead of time whether everyone will be in the 0 or 1 equilibrium. If it is a perfect mix, then the mean will be 1/2 and the best play is then 0. So unless you have good reason to believe that, in a mix of equilibria, over 3/4 will play the 1 equilibrium, you are better off playing 0. Since everyone will (in a Nash world) reason thusly, 0 will win.
posted by chortly at 1:16 PM on August 14, 2015


Wait, which specific 45,908 New York Times readers?
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:30 PM on August 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


If you always round off to the nearest whole number, isn't the lowest it can get 1, since 2/3 of 1 rounds off to 1?
posted by RobotHero at 2:36 PM on August 14, 2015


Watch out or flabdablet will call you a dumbass.
posted by languagehat at 2:42 PM on August 14, 2015


I guessed 20 after a rough calculation in my head that most people would guess an average initially around 50 and then guess roughly 30 as 2/3rds of that.

So yes, yes I am. I should play the stock market.
posted by easter queen at 2:45 PM on August 14, 2015


First off this is just the most NYT headline ever.

Also according to it I am smarter than 92 percent of NY Times readers! Take that! I'm so smart!

What still made me feel like garbage though was reading about how I was supposed to go about getting the answer - with some rote math logic that I didn't even think about.

I chose 21, and what actually happened in my head was that for whatever reason instead of picking 50 first and working from there like most people are supposed to do the number 33 just sort of popped into my head for absolutely no reason that I can describe. Then I said to myself "I am a pretty average person...so I bet a lot of other people think 33 also for whatever magical reason...what is 2/3 of 33?" and I picked 21.

This is why I've always hated math. I tend to think with my gut...the fact that logic is supposed to be so straightforward but to me seems so illogical when explained out is so infuriating.

Same generally goes for programming.
posted by jnnla at 4:36 PM on August 14, 2015


I passed this around the office and, predictably, the engineers picked "0" and got annoyed at all the "stupid" people that made their answer wrong.

Not a bad metaphor for development actually.
posted by Reyturner at 4:40 PM on August 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


This is why I've always hated math.

So you may think, but math is what you just did, and you seem pretty good at it.
posted by escabeche at 8:01 PM on August 14, 2015


predictably, the engineers picked "0" and got annoyed at all the "stupid" people that made their answer wrong

If the target group for this particular Family Feud variant were engineers I've worked with rather than New York Times readers, my first instinct would be to work out how to subvert the already-voted logic so as to register as many 100s as possible.
posted by flabdablet at 10:54 PM on August 14, 2015


« Older 6 Tricks to Get 86% More Chipotle Burrito (for...   |   Brennan: "I apologize for the actions of CIA... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments