Curiosity is
a public good.
Mathematics you can touch. Psychology you can question. Philosophy you can argue with. Welcome to the mischievous wing of the mind.
Enter the laboratory ↓Created by Sahil Tayal · The wider universe · No accounts, tracking, or server required.
The wisdom—and folly—of crowds
Condorcet's Jury Theorem: when voters make independent judgments and each is more likely than not to be correct, majority decisions become more reliable as the group grows. Move the sliders and watch the mathematics change.
Collective intelligence simulator
Where the theorem breaks
Imagine 101 people evaluating a claim. If each makes an independent judgment with 60% accuracy, the crowd can become highly reliable.
But if everyone repeats the same source, there may be effectively just one judgment. More votes do not automatically mean more information.
This model assumes identical accuracy, independence, binary choices, and a definite correct answer. Perfume preference, for example, often has no objectively correct majority answer.
The cognitive bias museum
Three small experiments. Choose before revealing the interpretation. These are demonstrations, not diagnostic tests.
The quiet statistician
A person is described as reserved, precise, and fond of spreadsheets. In a town there are 90 salespeople and 10 librarians. Assuming the description is equally likely for either profession, which job is more likely?
The expensive ticket
You paid ₹1,500 for a concert. An hour in, you dislike it and can leave safely. Staying has no additional benefit. What should guide your decision?
Same facts, different clothes
A treatment helps 90 out of 100 people. Another description says it fails for 10 out of 100 people. If these describe the same evidence, should your assessment change?
The Identity–Action Gap
Why does wanting to do something not always lead to doing it? This interactive toy model explores the role of intention, available support, energy and friction.
Adjust the conditions
What is this actually showing?
Try holding intention high while increasing friction. Then lower friction without changing motivation.
Important: This is a hypothetical educational simulation inspired by Sahil Tayal's developing Identity–Action Gap framework. The weights and output are illustrative—not empirically estimated, clinically validated, or a prediction of anyone's actual behaviour.
Real behaviour depends on context, habit, opportunity, health, incentives, and many other variables. This lab poses a question; it does not claim to settle it.
The philosophical arena
A good argument isn't the loudest monkey. It is the one that survives the strongest objection.
Choose a question
The argument clinic
Mercury's notebook
An evolving archive of questions, hypotheses and field notes. A few starter entries are included; add your own short dispatches directly in this browser.
Field notes
Write a dispatch
Posts are saved only in this browser using local storage. They will not appear publicly for other visitors. Public publishing requires a shared backend or CMS.
Follow the evidence
Good intellectual mischief leaves a trail. These are starting points for reading, not claims that the demonstrations above reproduce entire research literatures.
Collective decisions
Marquis de Condorcet, Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions (1785). For accessible context, see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Voting Methods.
Judgment and bias
Tversky & Kahneman (1974), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. DOI ↗
Framing effects
Tversky & Kahneman (1981), The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. DOI ↗ (Search by title if the DOI does not resolve.)
Behaviour design
Fogg (2009), A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. DOI ↗. Compare this established framework with the proposed Identity–Action Gap.