The worrying observation I make from Traitors is how easily a group of about a dozen people can become so sure of guilt on so little evidence, and time after time of being knowingly wrong. What if anything can we learn from this to understand the jury system and prosecutorial process?
Also, I have watched a bunch of series and I have not once noticed anyone click the obvious “hack”: the last person to enter the breakfast room after a kill night is almost always a faithful, because of the TV cliffhanger of viewers hanging on which of two faithful survived. It’s the best truth signal the game gives and I’ve never seen a player mention it. Maybe TV edits the knowledge out.
I don’t think it’s fair to carry this to the justice system. This is a forced scenario where they have to pick one AND invent the evidence - they’re the jury, judge, and executioner. The justice system waits until someone is suspected of something and then eventually they go through the system, where laws and procedures have been created to try and remove unfair processes. Juries are given explicit instructions about what can and cannot be considered, evidence can be thrown out on a technicality, etc.
Conviction rates are all over the place [1] depending on state, where in some places (like MA) you’re more likely to not be charged than charged. Of course the opposite exists too. Most people (97%) who are charged with federal crimes plead guilty, suggesting that most of them did in fact do it (yes some may not feel like they could win even if innocent, but that won’t be the majority). The innocence project estimates between 1-10% of people are wrongly incarcerated - this is a strong minority of the people and a hit rate that’s way better than traitors.
Unlike traitors, there are definitions for beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring hard evidence, etc.
I think traitors actually argues FOR our current justice system - look what happens when you remove all the rules and procedures, instead just allowing mob rule.
I do wonder how much meta gaming is going on though. As a faithful, given that new traitors are recruited, your goal isn't actually to eliminate a traitor but to survive, ideally knowing who the remaining the traitors are at the end (and making sure they don't end up in a majority at any point too). If you are confident that somebody is a traitor, there is something to be said for keeping them as a traitor so you know who the traitors are at the end.
I suspect most of the players are still trying to identify and eliminate traitors though: they do seem genuinely surprised/disappointed when a faithful is banished. It is quite scary how they latch onto tiny things and become convinced. I suspect that as soon as the faithful feel they are being targeted, they feel pressured and act in ways that reinforce everybody's ideas about them. Defensiveness gets interpreted as guilt very easily.
It's really hard to know whether this transfers to the jury system. It's hard for there to be an open discussions about how decisions get made by juries because people obviously can't talk about their experiences. To me juries feel like the 'least worst' way to make such decisions and you do need to be unanimous or extremely close to unanimous if the judge gives permission for that.
I wondered about the order of entry at breakfast too, but I've read that they film the scene in multiple permutations so they can't just figure it out from that. I don't know if that is accurate that film different permutations, but I find it hard to believe that nobody has cottoned on to the idea that the last couple of people in are faithful.
> It's hard for there to be an open discussions about how decisions get made by juries because people obviously can't talk about their experiences.
I served on a criminal trial jury (U.S.) for 3 weeks and when the trial was over, there was no restriction on who I could talk to or what I could say about the experience.
In California at least there is no law preventing the jury from talking to anyone about the case AFTER the jury returns its decision.
> I suspect most of the players are still trying to identify and eliminate traitors though: they do seem genuinely surprised/disappointed when a faithful is banished
tbf, they're also strongly incentivised to look surprised and disappointed when a faithful is banished.
And for that matter to latch on to someone else's wild suspicions even if they're daft, because if that person's theory turns out to be wrong (or even if it's right!), you're unlikely to be the person targeted for going along with it. Jury service doesn't come with the expectation that you're likely to be voted out by teammates or "murdered" if you come up with a decent counterargument or spot something tangible that nobody else does.
An important difference is that a jury acquittal is not saying you think the defendant is innocent, but rather that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is assumed.
You could think somebody is probably guilty but also feel obligated to acquit them. For a famous example I somehow doubt all the OJ Simpson jurors thought he was innocent, but he was acquitted nonetheless.
> latch onto tiny things
I think most people has a very low capacity for living with uncertainty. They much rather believe something random, e.g. whatever religion (or conspiracy theory) at hand, than admit that they can't know.
Uncertainty is demanding as it requires you to look at things from multiple angles/reasons and evaluate all options. It is much cheaper to just select a default reason. This is especially true for creating social cohesion in a group.
This. For all of the hate the rationalist movement gets they’re effectively teaching people to be comfortable with uncertainty. It worked for me- I don’t consider myself a rationalist, but do feel comfortable noticing “I’m not sure about this because I have limited evidence- which is the right way to feel about it.”
A guy from my town was on the Traitors and did attempt to take advantage of the loophole you mentioned and they almost entirely edited him out of the series.
The thing that stood out to me was how, particularly in the first season, when people had no idea what to grab onto they just grabbed onto the first vague suggestion they heard and, not only that, did so with very few dissenters.
I think this is the mechanism propaganda takes advantage of. Where there's a gap in people's understanding, they can very easily inject their version of events into people's heads and people will broadly accept it. The knowledge vacuum wants to be filled when pushed for a decision. In fact it doesn't even need to be this highly overt form that we saw in the 20th century dictatorships, even relatively weak forms can still grip hard and then people are reluctant to walk back from them after the fact.
Some would accuse faithfuls of potentially being traitors merely for voting differently to how the group had done previously, on tenuous information, even though they had no idea whether the person they voted for was a traitor or not! Here we see how, when intentionally directed, propaganda can sustain the creation of the scapegoats out of those who dissent.
It seems there's a psychological trait of people accepting and repeating others ideas while others will keep tickling for more information. In business settings I've seen very educated people start to repeat the behavior and ideas of other less competent people, which I assume was the pressure of having something to do or say to fill in blanks, and that starts the process.
So "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" episode from the original "The Twilight Zone".
It’s hard to know how much of the time they actually believe someone is guilty, vs just going along with the group, though. There’s a strong incentive to vote with the group because otherwise if someone is a traitor you look suspicious. And if the conversation is going after one person and that isn’t you, you’d like it to stay that way.
I don’t think it necessarily reflects how a jury etc works. If you acquit, you don’t have to choose someone else to accuse. You’re not going to face accusations yourself. You don’t have to repeat the process every day.
On your second point, I’m sure the UK second season changed the order to eliminate that, but it’s back this season. I’m sure a player mentioning it would be edited out though, so it’s hard to know if anyone assumes it’s still the case.
Yes. Another disincentive for finding a traitor in the first half of the game is that they just get replaced, and you get a target on your back. A good playing strategy is to be just vocal enough, with some open opinions.
I would even go as far as to say politics, and extends to society as a whole. Repeat a lie for long enough, others will begin to believe it as a truth, and if you can convince a person they will benefit personally, they are more than willing to forgo decency and morality in favor of personal benefits. Of course, in this case people are given an excuse for this behavior under the guise of a “game”.
People are tribal. It's pretty rare to find someone who acts rationally, enlightened and educated at all times. Of course all of us here do!
I agree with you, but in fact I have nurtured within myself a healthy skepticism that, so far, has protected me from scams, etc. I feel like skepticism is a powerful weapon against propaganda.
Ask yourself, "Does that person have something to gain by lying?" "Yes" should immediately raise a red flag and you can go from there.
>Of course all of us here do!
Phew. You had me worried there for a second.
Also remember the viewer sees both sides and has complete information, whereas all contestants have very little to go by and no clues are given.
> The worrying observation I make from Traitors is how easily a group of about a dozen people can become so sure of guilt on so little evidence, and time after time of being knowingly wrong.
I agree, some of the theories they come up with are insane and I feel like this (UK) season in particular is characterised by a lot of tribalism and anti-intellectualism.
Against that, we have to remember that the aim of the show is to be as entertaining as possible to as many people as possible. Interpersonal drama is more popular than explorations of game theory, so I suspect casting was based on who would be the most entertaining rather than the best at the game. I also think the editing plays a big role in presenting viewers with a particular narrative. They can probably quite easily cast people as being good or bad, smart or stupid.
Personally I have always thought the game was inherently quite stacked in the traitors' favour. Ultimately information is absolutely crucial to the game, and the traitors have a lot more of it (at the start of the game, they are arguably the only ones who have any at all).
Yes, this is exactly why groups of people make me genuinely scared. You can't use logic to argue with them.
When I was a kid there were shows where people would work together on challenges and vote out the least helpful team member, and a friend of mine said once "as a kid I already noticed that in these shows it's not the best person that wins, but the most clever and cunning".
“Almost always”. If the entries were completely randomised this would still be the case, since the murdered are always faithful and the majority of the remaining are faithful. There could well be some production bias but it’s not the cheat code you’re making it to be. Traitors can and will enter last.
I don't think they have entered last in the current UK series so far have they?
It's pretty rare, like any guessing game there are advantages and on the whole traitors entering last as I believe happened less often than the percentage of traitors to faithfuls would allow if it was randomised.
Haven't seen The Traitors, but recently started watching a Korean Netflix show called The 8 Show and the plot involves some mystery organizer (similar to Squid Game, I suppose) creating a setup that is a microcosmic version of trickle-down economics. I'm currently taking a break from the show because the behavior of the most powerful player in the game was so on point with what we see in reality, it became blood-boiling!
Just wanted to thank you for the reccomendation, the premise looks extremely interesting.
This game (under the "Mafia" name) has been popular in Finnish math-contest circles since some time in the 1990s, probably as a Russian import. In large groups there can be many more roles, such as the axe-wielding lone killer, the police chief who gets reliable information from the game master, and the doctor who can rescue a victim if they guess correctly. Lots of fun.
Someone mentioned Blood on the Clocktower <https://bloodontheclocktower.com/> which has many more roles and a more complicated game that can take hours. The upside is that you aren't out of the game when you are eliminated.
In the other direction, there is a One Night Ultimate Werewolf ruleset <https://www.wargamer.com/one-night-ultimate-werewolf/review> that leads to a much faster game because it's not iterated.
There is a social game that was popular here when I was a teen.
It was called "Werwolf" and I hated it so much that I stopped participating after one game IIRC (I was very fun at parties).
Reading up on it, it drew from the mentioned "Mafia" idea mentioned here.
Would have never known, interesting submission.
I used to run weekly Mafia/Werewolf parties: casual 2h nights with almost always 2-3 new folks.
For me running it (i.e. Being the "god", the narrrator etc.) is much more fun in such a context, as it's more about storytelling.
The main problem is that the game is quite unfun for the first 2-3 days: it's basically impossible to know who's who, so any sneeze, look or being the first one to speak will instantly make you a target of the crowd. There was a guy who just was a chatty guy and always started the conversation and he almost never made it past day 1. Absolutely unfair and unfun.
Whenever he wasn't killed on day 1 it was always due to someone standing up to the obvious unfairness and getting themselves killed, while he would get to live 1 extra night.
That's why we started adding extra unconventional roles and rules, to make up for this. For example, having a necromancer, who could turn a dead into a ghost who could do an action once. These changes would require to be more than 15 people, as you need to adjust the mafia in response.
The format is fun, the basic rules get boring pretty fast, given how newbies tend to play.
On the other hand, competitive mafia seems more about ninja communication and discussion, also I think they can also skip a voting.
One night ultimate werewolf fixes a lot of this. Many roles, easy narration, and no player termination (everyone plays every round).
I've played Mafia several times and enjoy it a lot. However, I have also witnessed friendships completely destroyed in the process. Some people are capable as seeing it as just a game, discard all prior trust or expectations with others during, and then at the end, reset completely back to how it was before, perhaps having learnt something about people in the process.
For those who cannot do this, they will experience true pain, broken trust, and leave with friendships fundamentally changed. If this sounds like you, do not play this game!
So no non-autistic women, got it.
There's a similar pay game called "Blood on the Clocktower". You probably wouldn't like it, but those who like Werewolf or Mafia might want to give it a look.
I've tried it a few times, but it's so much more complex that it really requires everyone who's playing to care deeply about reasoning through it. There's so little information that's public to everyone, so if even one player with a role that lets them get private information doesn't understand or communicate that well, the whole game can fall apart.
Still super popular and the whole basis for the game Among Us and many other computers games as well as board games.
Ah yes, that's the deal with Among us! This one passed me too, but I remember the description sounding somewhat similar.
Well, maybe should give the type of game another try. Tastes change and at the age at which my friends played "Werwolf", I was pretty much hating myself and everything around me so maybe I'd enjoy it today :)
The best versions of these games are set up to provide more contextual information than just "Player B Died Last Night". Classic Werewolf or Mafia, all information is public information, outside of people just talking to each other in whispers. Among Us adds a map and location information - you have to have been near the person who died to kill them, so if someone died in one room, you suspect players who were near that room or can't account for their location. Clocktower or One Night generally add information that only one player gets, such as being able to know if they're seated next to a bad player, which is powerful, but easy to lie about and risky to just admit since it makes you a target for the bad people.
We used to play this on IRC. Was quite fun.
Describing John Bercow as a "disgraced British parliamentarian" is underselling him. He is a disgraced speaker! That isn't a minor post. And quite a funny speaker. He bought a little bit too much personality into it but was an intelligent man and a very interesting study into managing a room and giving flavour to proceedings.
This 9 minute BBC youtube video of how a 'traitor' got through to the end is a good overview of the show:
We’ve been struck by how there really isn’t a strategy that works for the Faithful. As other people have pointed out, there’s a fairly scary tribalism to the voting, but very very little logic. And I’m not sure anything would actually “work” as a strategy unless you had skills reading body language or in NLP.
It's not clear to me the behaviour isn't fairly rational. It only seems irrational because the host tells the audience that the faithful are supposed to be finding traitors -- but they arent. Not at all. They're each aiming to win. Eliminating faithful is a necessary and prudent step.
Indeed, traitors have almost all of the power -- the ideal strategy as a faithful is to eliminate talented faithful and ally or sus-out for oneself who the traitors are.
In this light, any faithful expressing actual out-loud competence is a target for everyone, esp. other faithful.
It seem to me a good strategy is to play dumb, pretend to be confused that a competitor-faithful is a traitor, and target them.
I must say, it's strange watching Traitors after watching Beast Games. It feels slow and lazy.
Traitors is one idea padded out with endless cringey "ceremony". (Claudia Winkleman walks down a corridor in a cape! Claudia Winkelman whispers "murder"! People gather and read out names slowly.)
In the Mr Beast version, the entire series would be boiled down to one 8 minute segment – and there would be 15 other original ideas besides it.
That's why God made 1.5x speed.
British TV shows have long targeted a extremely aged demographic. Most TV seems to operate as if you're a little senile and aren't really following what's going on, or would be too uncertain and scared by quicker edits and more emotional intensity.
That said -- there's little 1.5x doesnt paper over about bad pacing choices.
I have a hard time watching anything for too long at 1.5-2x speed. After a while it feels like my internal monologue is running at the same speed and it's incrediblely distracting.
Hmm, mine already is ...
As well as 1.5x, jumping a couple of minutes after a screen goes dark often jumps the 'now you would've watched some adverts on real TV, here's a recapitulation of what you may have missed in the first part (you forgetful bastard)'
There's no ad breaks on the BBC.
I watch this show, but one of the most annoying things about it is that the traitors are incentivised to murder the smartest, most intuitive players first, leaving people they can manipulate easily. Maybe you could argue the smartest move is to play dumb.
This is at its worst in the second Australian season, which is an incredibly frustrating watch.
That was one of the most frustrating seasons of any television show I’ve ever watched, right up until the finale—which completely redeemed it for me! What an ending.
> Maybe you could argue the smartest move is to play dumb.
Does playing smart advertise you as smart on a popular TV show, while minimizing the tedious reality-TV drama that you have to go through? The expected winnings aren't all that much. And most (desirable) employers are would rate "smart" as a more desirable trait than to "gullible" or "underhanded".
Is there a term for the "I know that you know that I know…" thing? It's a fundamental part of fighting game strategy, particularly the aspect called "yomi", i.e. reading the opponent's intentions so as to preemptively counter them.
In poker it's called levels. Fighter pilots call it being inside the other persons OODA loop.
Rick vs. Heistotron (starts with an annoying pre-roll, hence the start-at-9-seconds parameter) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyOAxh4Iybg&t=9
There is a formalization using Modal Logic :) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#Games
This could go on indefinitely ("I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that..."). I always consider this related to the Byzantine Generals problem.
Yes and somewhat infamously in the fighting game context, high level players can sometimes psych themselves out completely in the heat of the moment, trying to recursively parse the infinite stack of reads and just completely bluescreening and getting hit by the most obvious option possible.
The term for an infinitely deep chain of that is "common knowledge"
Theory of mind
Its a reality TV based Werewolf game
Sounds like “Among Us”
What is the economics lesson though ? I figured they were talking about bounded rationality which the article touches upon in the last paragraph. But it would've been nice to get some confirmation within the article itself.
seems like among us without tasks
Played the game (Mafia offshoot with some more complications) with my Swiss friends. The first round was very cringe, and everyone was fully predictable. Then, when people got the taste of it, I’ve seen their eyes glow, as they suddenly understood. Then we had alliances, counter-alliances, regular people adopting the mafia behavior so they won’t be accused this round, layers of trickstery, and all that. Fun times!
I tried watching the British version and couldn’t make it more than 10 minutes in. Cringy and dumb, it seemed to me.