Questioning: What should be the best approach regarding this

[Smithereens]

@Smithreen

> reading human behavior is a complicated - detailed psychology study and its not impossible. It is possible and its a very old scientific study. one of the measurments of how smart is someone is social intelligence. Its variant from people to people , and understanding of others behavior and how they feel about a commuinication is a part of it. you may argue that in here we only see words and reading behavior over words are a stupid claim. I will argue back and claim that even through words you may see how other person feel .

> what I was talking about is not a simple asking / answering test.

> yes. Everyone underestimate that. Its very complex and very beuitiful if you start looking more deep into it. and it tells you so much facts.

>and I claim the reaction testing is the only true way for investigating others agenda. and reasons (or how we call it here : alignment). logical analyzing helps in a deep way but when we're talking about human behaviors its much more complicated than logic and logical tells are wrong at least half of the times.

I am claiming that omgus is not a scum tell. its a very good start for looking deeper in the reason someone omgus'ed though.

I'm not seeing a valid argument here. Yes words can impart how people think and feel. No, a reaction test is not going to tell you how people think and feel. It's like the difference between considering how you would react if a person was being assaulted in front of you, vs an actual incident where someone is assaulted in front of you. In theory, you would assist the person. In practice, virtually nobody ever does. Similarly, in theory, a reaction test tells you who is scum. In practice, it tells you nothing. This is the problem with the reductionalist approaches to human behaviour. You cannot simplify people into saying that 'unmaskable feelings of panic' will generally occur under a reaction test, that doesn't happen in reality, no matter how logical it sounds to you on paper.

"Reaction testing is the only true way for investigating others agenda."

Have you considered that this is actually not true at all? I could deduce the agenda of other players by examining the fact that a certain vote lacked any justification, that a certain player is role fishing, that a certain player isn't looking for scum etc etc. Reaction testing doesn't hold water when compared to the thousands of other considerations people observe when examining the behaviour of other players.

[Smithereens]

that's not reaction testing though that's just normal post analysis

@smithereens: questioning can be useful if it's a legitimate contradiction that mafia wouldn't be able to answer

If it appeared that I was attacking 'questioning' then I should clarify that I was attacking 'reaction testing' which invariably uses questions to elicit a response, and then examines the emotional nature of the response to determine affiliation.

[kuribo]

I don't think she's talking about reaction testing in the same way it's used on the site

It seems she's talking about gauging people's reactions

[Smithereens]

gauging people's reactions is pretty vague. What does that entail?

[kuribo]

I think she's talking about engaging people and seeing how they respond, I should say.

Which is how town should play, obviously.

But when you or I or anyone else talk about reaction testing, we mean bullshit like what I linked.

[Frozen Angel]

@Smithreen

> reading human behavior is a complicated - detailed psychology study and its not impossible. It is possible and its a very old scientific study. one of the measurments of how smart is someone is social intelligence. Its variant from people to people , and understanding of others behavior and how they feel about a commuinication is a part of it. you may argue that in here we only see words and reading behavior over words are a stupid claim. I will argue back and claim that even through words you may see how other person feel .

> what I was talking about is not a simple asking / answering test.

> yes. Everyone underestimate that. Its very complex and very beuitiful if you start looking more deep into it. and it tells you so much facts.

>and I claim the reaction testing is the only true way for investigating others agenda. and reasons (or how we call it here : alignment). logical analyzing helps in a deep way but when we're talking about human behaviors its much more complicated than logic and logical tells are wrong at least half of the times.

I am claiming that omgus is not a scum tell. its a very good start for looking deeper in the reason someone omgus'ed though.

I'm not seeing a valid argument here. Yes words can impart how people think and feel. No, a reaction test is not going to tell you how people think and feel. It's like the difference between considering how you would react if a person was being assaulted in front of you, vs an actual incident where someone is assaulted in front of you. In theory, you would assist the person. In practice, virtually nobody ever does. Similarly, in theory, a reaction test tells you who is scum. In practice, it tells you nothing. This is the problem with the reductionalist approaches to human behaviour. You cannot simplify people into saying that 'unmaskable feelings of panic' will generally occur under a reaction test, that doesn't happen in reality, no matter how logical it sounds to you on paper.

"Reaction testing is the only true way for investigating others agenda."

Have you considered that this is actually not true at all? I could deduce the agenda of other players by examining the fact that a certain vote lacked any justification, that a certain player is role fishing, that a certain player isn't looking for scum etc etc. Reaction testing doesn't hold water when compared to the thousands of other considerations people observe when examining the behaviour of other players.

O.O

siriously why are you going to first block again. If you have a problem with my playstyle don't play with me. I use peoples reactions and the way they act in different circumstances and for testing it I make those circumstances occasionally.

wanna see how it works? read this : http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=65639

I claimed a macho tracker and i got two tracker guilty in row. and I told that the last mafia used a no kill gambit (instead of being roleblocked) in the third day.

is that pure luck?

if it is why my method worked in all my other games?

what do you want me to tell you? yes the way people reacts to different situations matter. your saying its to complex to be considered as a tell, I'm giving you a way. test that in multiple aspects and compare them. it will start make sense .

why I'm claiming all other tells are conditional and this one isn't? everyone can scum slip logically as town or as mafia. everyone can have a logical fallacy. the way they perform this actions and their agenda is the thing we must find out not hunting down their actions.

someone who omguses is not scum. someone who omguses becuase their frustrated on hard tunnel on them is not scum.

I hope you see what I'm saying. if not I'm not forcing you to use my style. I'm just defending it and it is a valid strategy - and its definietly not pure luck.

[Frozen Angel]

just for clarification it doesn't require you to claim

or to fake hammer

or to do stupid stuff. (it was assumable becuase I linked that one)

it needs you to analyze their reactions in certain circumstances and find out the Hypocrisy or any odd interaction and relation ship between two players. I'm usually heat stuff a bit when I have those certain circumstances are not yet built in game - in that game it was the case.

[callforjudgement]

>If you're smart enough to ask it, they are smart enough to answer it. If you're trying to determine a players motives using questions, you're assuming that they can't figure out your own motives for themselves. Trust me, they can. you would be seriously over estimating your own abilities if you believe that you can work out other people's motives without having your own motives determined in the process.

Of course, it's worth noting that if I'm town, I

want

people to figure out my motives. And a question can still be good at determining who's scum even if scum know exactly why you asked it. (Typically, this is because the question forces scum to commit to something that they wanted to leave open; this can later lead to tells such as, say, an unnatural read progression, because you forced scum into making a bad decision and they later have to look scummy to be able to back out of it.)

[Ranmaru]

Frozen Angel can you give your three best games that have what you are talking about, and explain why it worked in each.

[Smithereens]

I hope you see what I'm saying. if not I'm not forcing you to use my style. I'm just defending it and it is a valid strategy - and its definietly not pure luck.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here then. I simply don't see your defense as functional, but if you see it that way, I guess that's up to you.

[Frozen Angel]

what do you mean you don't see my defense functional

[Frozen Angel]

Frozen Angel can you give your three best games that have what you are talking about, and explain why it worked in each.

I will make a list later today. ok.

[Smithereens]

Of course, it's worth noting that if I'm town, I

want

people to figure out my motives. And a question can still be good at determining who's scum even if scum know exactly why you asked it. (Typically, this is because the question forces scum to commit to something that they wanted to leave open; this can later lead to tells such as, say, an unnatural read progression, because you forced scum into making a bad decision and they later have to look scummy to be able to back out of it.)

Similarly, a scum who answers a question to the satisfaction of a townie will get a town read because they fit the mental schema of the questioner. No doubt questions can catch scum. However questions can just as easily create false positives or false negatives. The point is that your attempts to deduce the motives of the other players are equally likely (if not more likely) to lead to mislynches than lynches. Therefore my argument that recognising the fact that we are often wrong is well supported.

[Smithereens]

what do you mean you don't see my defense functional

Your justification is pure rhetoric. I'd too be interested in the evidence you're about to post.

[Frozen Angel]

your saying the same thing I'm saying and your criticizing it ; your not suggesting a solution but I am

the fact that usually your wrong doesn't mean you can't get better in this. I'm suggesting a way for being better in this.

[Frozen Angel]

I'm suggesting a way for analyzing behaviors and answers and the way people answer them.

a suggesting can't be rhetoric. Your saying its impossible you must prove its impossible ; you can't. as you said its highly complex. but this is a scientific and tested possibility and completly logical analyzing (logic of emotions)

[Frozen Angel]

I must leave now

but I will post my results (although I'm not claiming I'm really good implementing mu suggestion) after I returned.

[Smithereens]

your saying the same thing I'm saying and your criticizing it ; your not suggesting a solution but I am

the fact that usually your wrong doesn't mean you can't get better in this. I'm suggesting a way for being better in this.

If we are both saying the same thing, then we both agree that most methods of behavioural analysis produce inaccurate results.

My solution is to recognise that most methods of behavioural analysis produce inaccurate results and begin with that knowledge in mind.
Your solution is to... use reaction tests...? Idk. You tell me.

[Smithereens]

I'm suggesting a way for analyzing behaviors and answers and the way people answer them.

a suggesting can't be rhetoric. Your saying its impossible you must prove its impossible ; you can't. as you said its highly complex. but this is a scientific and tested possibility and completly logical analyzing (logic of emotions)

"a suggesting can't be rhetoric."
A suggestion can be rhetoric. Your suggestion largely is rhetoric. Rhetoric is simply the use of language to make a point sound more convincing. Your practice is not evidence based, that's why I know with a great deal of certainty that it is not much more than the superfluous use of language.

"Your saying its impossible you must prove its impossible."
If I suggested that we could catch scum by counting the number of words they used and comparing it to the average word count of their town games, I would be obliged to prove my claims. Same here, you have a burden of proof to substantiate the claim you made previously. The onus is not on me to discredit you.

"but this is a scientific and tested possibility and completly logical analyzing (logic of emotions)."
I'm looking for a polite way to label this Bullshit. Unfortunately, none comes to mind. So there you have it.

[Ranmaru]

Smith how can we 'begin' so to speak. I am really interested in behavioral analysis and psychology.

[Smithereens]

Smith how can we 'begin' so to speak. I am really interested in behavioral analysis and psychology.

Humans judge everything in the context of beliefs and pre-conceptions which are already held by the individual. It doesn't just apply to our perceptions of humans. Our sensations of the world itself is filtered as well. In psychology this is known as top-down processing, where you start with your expectation and match stimuli to it to identify the item you're looking for. Simply put, If you want more accurate conclusions, remove pre-existing biases.

[Frozen Angel]

your saying the same thing I'm saying and your criticizing it ; your not suggesting a solution but I am

the fact that usually your wrong doesn't mean you can't get better in this. I'm suggesting a way for being better in this.

If we are both saying the same thing, then we both agree that most methods of behavioural analysis produce inaccurate results.

My solution is to recognise that most methods of behavioural analysis produce inaccurate results and begin with that knowledge in mind.
Your solution is to... use reaction tests...? Idk. You tell me.

youre not even reading what I'm saying It wasn't the part I thought we're saying the same thing. we're saying the same thing about how results of questions and events are not telling anything by itself. but I have no idea who you use that to conclude the behavioral analysis are inacurte.

The reaction test by the definition your using is not accurate - but behavioral analysis are accurate.

siriously. I don't care. why should I convince you that your wrong if your not even reading what I'm asying and all your doing is to disagree and attack the results instead of whatevre lead to there?

[Accountant]

Smithereens and Frozen Angel have absolutely no disagreement but they use different words so it looks like they are.

If a reaction test falls in the forest without anyone to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Frozen Angel]

I'm suggesting a way for analyzing behaviors and answers and the way people answer them.

a suggesting can't be rhetoric. Your saying its impossible you must prove its impossible ; you can't. as you said its highly complex. but this is a scientific and tested possibility and completly logical analyzing (logic of emotions)

"a suggesting can't be rhetoric."
A suggestion can be rhetoric. Your suggestion largely is rhetoric. Rhetoric is simply the use of language to make a point sound more convincing. Your practice is not evidence based, that's why I know with a great deal of certainty that it is not much more than the superfluous use of language.

"Your saying its impossible you must prove its impossible."
If I suggested that we could catch scum by counting the number of words they used and comparing it to the average word count of their town games, I would be obliged to prove my claims. Same here, you have a burden of proof to substantiate the claim you made previously. The onus is not on me to discredit you.

"but this is a scientific and tested possibility and completly logical analyzing (logic of emotions)."
I'm looking for a polite way to label this Bullshit. Unfortunately, none comes to mind. So there you have it.

My suggesting is a way to play that I used in all my past games. I hate when people accuse me of being rhetoric when they can't talk about anything else. I don't even know your fucking language to well to be rhetoric. My practice is only evidence based. Your attacking to my practice without researching about the evidences I putten in is being rhetoric. If you don't wanna discuss something and your not capable of doing so , no body is forcing you to do it.

I didn't ever suggested that. all I did in this thread so far was saying if your going to just attack behavioral analysis like the way your doing you must prove that I'm wrong becuase I have examples that are standing on my side. Your saying behavioral analysing is impossible in a mafia game I made a proof its possible. some of people like you accused me of being just lucky and I brought more examples for it. if anyone is still counting it lucky I don't care. I am satisfied with my play. i'm the one who is suggesting a thing here. if your not going to accept it , then don't!

plus there is a deep logical process included in my analyses so calling it pure luck is like counting every bit of your life based on luck - which is a true fact but thats not the imperession you want to put on my method when you call it lucky - all i'm saying is that its a valid way and it has valid answers and it pays off.

this mehod is concidering the fact people are not the same. and they will likly continue their habbits as eaither alignments. its not the targets of this method. this kind of analysis can tell if someone is hiding something , is anxious about something , is scared about something , is frustrated about something , is happy about something. i generally how someone feels about something. now this feeling means nothing on it owns but if you comare it to how that person reacted to other stuff happened you may make a behavioral sequence. By analayzing this squenece you can see how someone gets unwillingly anxious when their scumbuddy is dying - even if their the one who are bussying them -

Again you may say that this is not measurable through words on internet. the thing is , its not the words that will tell someones emotion. its the variation of their reactions from one moment than another. and its not fakeable - for that they must fake the emotion itself which won't matter as it will be obvious in the sequence of that persons behavioral changes.

It is scientific , it is a hybrid of logical/emotional anlayizing and your rejection of the core basis of this idea means absoloutly nothing to me.

oh and by the way I suggest you to read this book : Science And Human Behavior By B.F Skinner. if your not calling whatever is against your idea of word Bullshit before analyzing them.

these are all my town meta - including all the games I used this meta in and the ones I didn't:

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=64200 : game canceled in day 1
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=64284 : I was playing this game with pure logical analysis and I lost horribly.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63853 : I was an absoloute newbie and I had doctor. I had no idea whats going on till day 3 but I used a reaction test , by lieing about my role (doctor) and I made the scum claim him and his partner and got myself a 50-50 chance for saving someone at night but I failed.(this started before the upper one)
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=64070 : they lol hammered two people in day 1 and 2 and I died night 2 so I had no chance to play.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=64429 : I wasn't actually town. the game was semi king maker and town needed to decide on of me or one of the other two druids to win with them and we all needed to kill the only person with killing ability (a mage). I claimed druid under a little pressure, started noting stuff about people and I compared how people reacted to how someone with informations a mage had would react possibly. I pushed a lynch and we lynched mage day 1.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=64408 : I was purly lurking this game (don't look at my post count , there were pages that I never read even when I was in lylo)
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=64520 : it was 2/2 lynch. most of my concern was to reason with the other hydra head in the game (Jeanne) so I really couldn't push my extreme questioning attitude. anyway if you track the way soren/mola hydra was reacting to my questions and the way titus was treating them you can see their attempt to be townreaded by her and rejecting engaging with me. If you compare the way they were catching up (between the heads) you can see one of them was trying so hard to dodge anything related to Jeanne but the other one was hardly trying to push her back . the variation of their behavior treating to different pushes was like they know that all these pushes are coming from town but they wanted to push Jeanne and they were trying to make Titus against her and heat Jeanne against titus.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=64215 : there wasn't any need for a scum hunting when I replaced in. all I neede to do was to softing that I'm the macho doctor to attract a night kill which failed becuase the doctor healed me. the cop solved the rest.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=64753 : This is an example of what i'm talking about. RC was the one who were heating the game and I just used the way he did stuff. I had 0 doubt about the shos flip at the end of day 1 becuase of the way they tried to push back the town and use the mess to take his fish. if you iso shos you can see that he was dodging enaging at start (not a tell by itself) then when he started engaging he called the people who pushed him to post scum but then he saw he can't stand so much so he felt he needs an ally help. when the wagon deflected from him he didn't went back to his dodging style. instead he started to go wherever others pushing. when he got pressured again he started dodging the main concern again to apear like the way he was in start. he posted so many what the hell are you talking about posts and stuff. another behavioral change was when he claimed. he just throw away his dodgy style and claimed investigative (I guess ) to hang in there one more day. This behavior means servivlism and again its not a tell by itself but it highly suggest an agenda (that will be probably soon achivable) [look at his role pm which was a recruiter]
again nothing of these make him scum in first sight , ut look at them in a pattern and you understand that he can't have a town agenda.
oh and we were a vig and we shot the other scum based on the associations.

[Frozen Angel]

is not all my meta, its not even half of it

I got tired :/