7 ms·

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 t

by 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.
        Gormo 2y ago
        It sounds like your primary critique here is that "rationalist" communities overlap in membership with other communities that have other, not strictly related, inclinations. That may be so, but I'm not sure it's relevant -- if a bowling league's membership consists primarily of Mormons, I still wouldn't interpret criticism of Mormon theology as being relevant to discussions of bowling.
notahacker 2y ago
> 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.
PopAlongKid 2y ago
> 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.
- greensoap 2y ago
  In California at least there is no law preventing the jury from talking to anyone about the case AFTER the jury returns its decision.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Ditto, lengthy trial with a hung jury. Judge instructed us that we were permitted but not required to talk after we left, although there might have been an admonition about personal information of other jurors. I tried to give useful feedback to both of the lawyers, since I suspect neither of them were really happy with the mistrial outcome.
ANewFormation 2y ago
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.
- wat10000 2y ago
  You could even think somebody is definitely guilty beyond any doubt and still acquit them if you think it’s the right outcome.
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    Indeed, and I suspect as more people learn about jury nullification, the world will grow more just.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >Indeed, and I suspect as more people learn about jury nullification, the world will grow more just. One would hope, but back in the day it was a powerful tool to do the opposite where juries disagreeing with the law would find minorities guilty when they obviously weren't.
      - wat10000 2y ago
        At least there’s an appeals process which can potentially remedy that. It’s far from perfect, but a jury’s power to convict is not absolute.
        ANewFormation 2y ago
        Also the [general] requirement for a unanimous vote to convict makes this form of juror action quite uncommon. By contrast a single juror can cause a jury to be unable to convict.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
Unless very extreme circumstances apply and a judge orders a jury not to talk, people on juries are generally allowed to talk about what happened after the fact. However, there are often very strict rules on soliciting jury members to talk to you and courts give jury members quite a bit of anonymity protection so that they can exercise their right not to speak about high-profile cases. Generally, Jurors who want to talk about it in public are few and far between because there is no upside and a lot of downside.
Suppafly 2y ago
>because people obviously can't talk about their experiences Sure they can, at least in the US.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
atkailash 2y ago
[dead]

by jvvw 2y ago

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.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        It sounds like your primary critique here is that "rationalist" communities overlap in membership with other communities that have other, not strictly related, inclinations. That may be so, but I'm not sure it's relevant -- if a bowling league's membership consists primarily of Mormons, I still wouldn't interpret criticism of Mormon theology as being relevant to discussions of bowling.

notahacker 2y ago

> 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.

PopAlongKid 2y ago

> 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.

greensoap 2y ago
In California at least there is no law preventing the jury from talking to anyone about the case AFTER the jury returns its decision.
Terr_ 2y ago
Ditto, lengthy trial with a hung jury. Judge instructed us that we were permitted but not required to talk after we left, although there might have been an admonition about personal information of other jurors. I tried to give useful feedback to both of the lawyers, since I suspect neither of them were really happy with the mistrial outcome.

ANewFormation 2y ago

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.

wat10000 2y ago
You could even think somebody is definitely guilty beyond any doubt and still acquit them if you think it’s the right outcome.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  Indeed, and I suspect as more people learn about jury nullification, the world will grow more just.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >Indeed, and I suspect as more people learn about jury nullification, the world will grow more just. One would hope, but back in the day it was a powerful tool to do the opposite where juries disagreeing with the law would find minorities guilty when they obviously weren't.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      At least there’s an appeals process which can potentially remedy that. It’s far from perfect, but a jury’s power to convict is not absolute.
      - ANewFormation 2y ago
        Also the [general] requirement for a unanimous vote to convict makes this form of juror action quite uncommon. By contrast a single juror can cause a jury to be unable to convict.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

Unless very extreme circumstances apply and a judge orders a jury not to talk, people on juries are generally allowed to talk about what happened after the fact. However, there are often very strict rules on soliciting jury members to talk to you and courts give jury members quite a bit of anonymity protection so that they can exercise their right not to speak about high-profile cases. Generally, Jurors who want to talk about it in public are few and far between because there is no upside and a lot of downside.

Suppafly 2y ago

>because people obviously can't talk about their experiences Sure they can, at least in the US.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

atkailash 2y ago

[dead]