Re: virus: Four Principles Digest

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Thu, 03 Apr 1997 22:24:48 -0800

Reed wrote:
>But the nice thing about this list is that there is a very low barrier to
>being manipulated because there is almost zero risk. Let's say Richard
>is playing games with us all. Who cares? It IS an interesting experiment,
>after all...designed or not. It's a game, and those are always the most
>instructive lessons.

I know an interesting game called "associations" which sometimes this list
reminds me of. There are two players and an audience (optional). Person A
leaves the room when person B hides two objects under two hats (one object
under each hat). Eg. a ring and a pencil. Person B leaves the room when
person A looks under one of the hats. Person B returns and they "talk".
Person B says something and person A is supposed to quickly say something
which first comes to mind. Eg. "writing" -- "pen", "marriage" --
"engagement", "words" -- "sentences", "diamond" -- "gift". Person B wins if
he/she can tell which hat person A looked under. Person A wins if he/she
can tell what's under the other hat. Whoever is ready first stops the game
and B guesses which hat was looked under (which object A saw), then A
guesses the other object. (n this case A probably saw the ring).

The game can be very exciting if you like challenge. Both players try to
deceive each other as much as they can, but it is still possible to figure
out what the other person saw. Finding what's hidden under the other hat is
usually more challenging.

A similar strategy can be used on the CoV list to find out what others have
under their hats. It takes some time, but it works. Of course we will
never be able to know for sure, as we cannot *look* under the hats. How
much simpler would it be if we did not have the hats...

>Order emerges from chaos. There doesn't need to be a designer.
>neither god nor Richard.
>The discussion we were having was about censorship, and the responsibility
>a memetic engineer has to the public. I think you're focusing too much on
>the details.

We were talking about a situation where a person keeps bringing up a topic
of an extremely harmful idea she claims to know about, and at the same time
insisting to not talk about it. Evidently a game.

Tim, who doesn't seem to know this game, says:

>How many times has Richard talked about these things compared to
>you and I and Tad and everyone else? Will *YOU* agree to drop the issue
>as well? If not, why not?

Tim, I'm ready, I know what's under your hat.

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa (604) 985-4159