8 ms·

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 ti

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.

solumunus 2y ago
“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.
- jvvw 2y ago
  I don't think they have entered last in the current UK series so far have they?
  - ktallett 2y ago
    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.
jvvw 2y ago
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.
- silvestrov 2y ago
  > 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.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    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.”
    - wat10000 2y ago
      To be fair, the “how to deal with your many cognitive biases” part is not what the rationalist movement is generally hated on.
      - _t9ow 2y ago
        > what the rationalist movement is generally hated on Out of genuine curiosity, what causes hatred/resentment towards this community?
        _yb2s 2y ago
        They are accused of being basically a doomsday cult for intellectuals with an extreme fanatical focus on AI doomerism. They also have a huge number of really unusual social norms including using their own ultra nerdy lingo with lots of obscure fiction references in regular life, widespread polyamory - and often vocal disapproval of monogamy, outspoken rejection of sexual norms including group sex parties and raising kids communally in polyamorous group homes, rejection of all political correctness, and willingness to discuss normally taboo topics in casual conversation. In a lot of ways it reminds me of the beatniks- they're basically throwing out all of the existing culture, and trying to create something entirely new by trial and error, sometimes with quite bad results. I've learned an awful lot of good ideas from the community that I've applied directly in my career as a scientist, and attended a few events in person, but personally wasn't able to connect with the people, I always felt like an outsider and I also found a lot of their blatant rejection and reinvention of virtually all social norms somewhat disturbing in person. There are also a lot of really kind, open minded, and brilliant people in the community- and I personally think most of their concerns over AI are well founded, but not everyone agrees.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
NoboruWataya 2y ago
> 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).
fatfox 2y ago
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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Slow_Hand 2y ago
  It would be interesting if fans edited the episodes into a "contestant viewpoint only" version that removed the TV viewer's perspective and allowed viewers to play along without knowledge of the traitors.
switch007 2y ago
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!
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  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.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  >Of course all of us here do! Phew. You had me worried there for a second.
therealpygon 2y ago
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”.
captainbland 2y ago
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.
- agumonkey 2y ago
  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.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  So "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" episode from the original "The Twilight Zone".
  - captainbland 2y ago
    Pretty much exactly that, yeah.
iimaginary 2y ago
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.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
  My spouse and I are avid consumers of the series and we have been hypothesizing on and off why 1-2 game participants each season get almost no screen time whatsoever. Originally we thought it might simply be that the people in question make boring television. This is another possibility we had not even entertained - that the producers were punishing people for meta-gaming. Based on my knowledge of the show and commentary around its filming, it does seem genuinely mostly unscripted - which means that producers are probably reaching for other mechanisms to control dialogue and contestant behavior and probably threatening screen time for breaking the 4th wall is an effective one.
- spacediscojesus 2y ago
  Is this him? https://thetraitors.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_McNeill https://thetraitors.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_McNeill
mcintyre1994 2y ago
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.
- yzydserd 2y ago
  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.
  - sevenseacat 2y ago
    I've only watched the Australian seasons of the Traitors, but they're so heavily weighted in favour of the traitors, I don't see how the faithful can win.
anal_reactor 2y ago
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".
azinman2 2y ago
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. [1] https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
no_wizard 2y ago
There is always off screen stuff that pushes the participants toward acting a certain way. This holds true for nearly all reality TV shows
EGreg 2y ago
My cofounder Zak and I were on a show called "Planet of the Apps" by Apple, many years ago. I met Jessica Alba, Gwenyth Paltrow, Will-I-Am, and Gary Vaynerchuk. I can tell you that a lot of these shows are staged. They tell you to "react like X" and then film you again and say "react like Y" and they slice and dice footage to show whatever they want. In the case of that show, they completely edited us out of the final show. So it's not really easy for contestants to "sneak something past the censors" :)
cortesoft 2y ago
> the last person to enter the breakfast room after a kill night is almost always a faithful Never trust the order things happen in reality tv. They will show reaction shots to completely different things, mess up the order of shots, cut things completely out of order, etc, to drive a narrative.
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  Indeed. https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  It is bizarre to me that so many posters in this thread are discussing a tv show as if it reflects reality. Perhaps it is submarine marketing?
- xarope 2y ago
  A friend was in one of those reality Amazing Races program, where another couple's husband was quite vilified; she said actually he was ok, but somehow they managed to get every single time he blew up and stitched it together to make him seem really terrible.
  - theshrike79 2y ago
    Reality shows make or break in two spots: casting and editing. Whatever is in the middle is nice and all, but those two make it interesting
mordechai9000 2y ago
This reminds me of a party game I played once called Mafia, which is a bit like Among Us but played verbally. I was a bit drunk, and the designated villain was very socially adroit, which I most certainly am not. The villain easily convinced the other players I was the villain, on the basis, I think, simply of his charisma and perceived trustworthiness. I was struck by how readily the other players followed what seemed like blatantly manipulative suggestions in a game where you know the goal is deception.

solumunus 2y ago

“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.

jvvw 2y ago
I don't think they have entered last in the current UK series so far have they?
- ktallett 2y ago
  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.

jvvw 2y ago

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.

silvestrov 2y ago
> 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.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  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.”
  - wat10000 2y ago
    To be fair, the “how to deal with your many cognitive biases” part is not what the rationalist movement is generally hated on.
    - _t9ow 2y ago
      > what the rationalist movement is generally hated on Out of genuine curiosity, what causes hatred/resentment towards this community?
      - _yb2s 2y ago
        They are accused of being basically a doomsday cult for intellectuals with an extreme fanatical focus on AI doomerism. They also have a huge number of really unusual social norms including using their own ultra nerdy lingo with lots of obscure fiction references in regular life, widespread polyamory - and often vocal disapproval of monogamy, outspoken rejection of sexual norms including group sex parties and raising kids communally in polyamorous group homes, rejection of all political correctness, and willingness to discuss normally taboo topics in casual conversation. In a lot of ways it reminds me of the beatniks- they're basically throwing out all of the existing culture, and trying to create something entirely new by trial and error, sometimes with quite bad results. I've learned an awful lot of good ideas from the community that I've applied directly in my career as a scientist, and attended a few events in person, but personally wasn't able to connect with the people, I always felt like an outsider and I also found a lot of their blatant rejection and reinvention of virtually all social norms somewhat disturbing in person. There are also a lot of really kind, open minded, and brilliant people in the community- and I personally think most of their concerns over AI are well founded, but not everyone agrees.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

NoboruWataya 2y ago

> 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).

fatfox 2y ago

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.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Slow_Hand 2y ago
It would be interesting if fans edited the episodes into a "contestant viewpoint only" version that removed the TV viewer's perspective and allowed viewers to play along without knowledge of the traitors.

switch007 2y ago

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!

JKCalhoun 2y ago
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.
ImHereToVote 2y ago
>Of course all of us here do! Phew. You had me worried there for a second.

therealpygon 2y ago

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”.

captainbland 2y ago

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.

agumonkey 2y ago
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.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
So "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" episode from the original "The Twilight Zone".
- captainbland 2y ago
  Pretty much exactly that, yeah.

iimaginary 2y ago

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.

SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
My spouse and I are avid consumers of the series and we have been hypothesizing on and off why 1-2 game participants each season get almost no screen time whatsoever. Originally we thought it might simply be that the people in question make boring television. This is another possibility we had not even entertained - that the producers were punishing people for meta-gaming. Based on my knowledge of the show and commentary around its filming, it does seem genuinely mostly unscripted - which means that producers are probably reaching for other mechanisms to control dialogue and contestant behavior and probably threatening screen time for breaking the 4th wall is an effective one.
spacediscojesus 2y ago
Is this him? https://thetraitors.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_McNeill https://thetraitors.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_McNeill

mcintyre1994 2y ago

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.

yzydserd 2y ago
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.
- sevenseacat 2y ago
  I've only watched the Australian seasons of the Traitors, but they're so heavily weighted in favour of the traitors, I don't see how the faithful can win.

anal_reactor 2y ago

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".

azinman2 2y ago

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. [1] https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

no_wizard 2y ago

There is always off screen stuff that pushes the participants toward acting a certain way. This holds true for nearly all reality TV shows

EGreg 2y ago

My cofounder Zak and I were on a show called "Planet of the Apps" by Apple, many years ago. I met Jessica Alba, Gwenyth Paltrow, Will-I-Am, and Gary Vaynerchuk. I can tell you that a lot of these shows are staged. They tell you to "react like X" and then film you again and say "react like Y" and they slice and dice footage to show whatever they want. In the case of that show, they completely edited us out of the final show. So it's not really easy for contestants to "sneak something past the censors" :)

cortesoft 2y ago

> the last person to enter the breakfast room after a kill night is almost always a faithful Never trust the order things happen in reality tv. They will show reaction shots to completely different things, mess up the order of shots, cut things completely out of order, etc, to drive a narrative.

xanderlewis 2y ago
Indeed. https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 2y ago
It is bizarre to me that so many posters in this thread are discussing a tv show as if it reflects reality. Perhaps it is submarine marketing?
xarope 2y ago
A friend was in one of those reality Amazing Races program, where another couple's husband was quite vilified; she said actually he was ok, but somehow they managed to get every single time he blew up and stitched it together to make him seem really terrible.
- theshrike79 2y ago
  Reality shows make or break in two spots: casting and editing. Whatever is in the middle is nice and all, but those two make it interesting

mordechai9000 2y ago

This reminds me of a party game I played once called Mafia, which is a bit like Among Us but played verbally. I was a bit drunk, and the designated villain was very socially adroit, which I most certainly am not. The villain easily convinced the other players I was the villain, on the basis, I think, simply of his charisma and perceived trustworthiness. I was struck by how readily the other players followed what seemed like blatantly manipulative suggestions in a game where you know the goal is deception.