Questioning: What should be the best approach regarding this

[kuribo]

lucky I guess?

In a nutshell, yes.

[kuribo]

i mean, i really really REALLY don't want to bring up camn's apartment because I was in that game for like two hours before ragequitting

but that's a pretty good example of the kind of bullshit that passes for reaction test

including up to AFTER MY SLOT DIED, the guy that did it saying "how did that slot flip town?!"

yeah, there's a reason my slot died before yours, stick your reaction tests where the sun don't shine, bub.

[Frozen Angel]

ok!

I'm lucky! let me do my luck work and follow my lead more often. Its proven useful <3

[Frozen Angel]

i mean, i really really REALLY don't want to bring up camn's apartment because I was in that game for like two hours before ragequitting

but that's a pretty good example of the kind of bullshit that passes for reaction test

including up to AFTER MY SLOT DIED, the guy that did it saying "how did that slot flip town?!"

yeah, there's a reason my slot died before yours, stick your reaction tests where the sun don't shine, bub.

I don't care how others used this and I think we're not talking about the same "reaction testing" here.

so whatever! <3

[kuribo]

Well, unfortunately, 99.99999% of the players on the site don't have your skill at reaction testing, and so my original assessment stands.

[kuribo]

I mean, none of this is personally directed at you. You're not the only person who does "reaction tests," and for that matter not the only person that claims to be good at them.

Even if you're perfect--- and I'll take your word that you are--- everyone else isn't.

[Frozen Angel]

as I said I understand.

I'm just saying refusing the whole idea like that while it can be more effective if used and analyzed correctly is wrong. specially when it can be easily misunderstood with a emotional rage on something - what people use to misrepresent my cases to save themselves and their teammates -

its easily misunderstandable becuase of its nature , and its really hard to explain . but its not related for it being a bad method or a not correct one.

[zMuffinMan]

it's bad because it introduces unnecessary elements into the game

if you can analyse someone's posts as well as you say you can, then you can do it without "reaction tests"

[Frozen Angel]

it's bad because it introduces unnecessary elements into the game

if you can analyse someone's posts as well as you say you can, then you can do it without "reaction tests"

Its the "Reaction Test"

unnecessary elements your talking about are the only elements that matter while determining someone's alignment (whose alignment isn't confirmed in a logical way I mean) . logical fallacy means nothing in that matter by itself.

[zMuffinMan]

right. whatever. all i'm going to say is the calibre of player who would look bad from a reaction test as scum is the kind of player who is going to be obvious as scum anyway, and vice versa for town players

if you truly believe they work, then good for you, i guess

[Frozen Angel]

ok!

I don't think I'm obvious as scum though. its discussable!

[Accountant]

hey frozen angel you should try playing some games without raection testing and see how well you do compared to when you do test

[Frozen Angel]

I did that already.

I just felt like a useless peace of shit whose reads were all screwed up.

[Accountant]

So you can't read people without rxn tests?

[Frozen Angel]

whats an rxn test?

I'm sure we have definition here.

[Accountant]

when you say something that doesn't reflect your true thoughts about the game specifically to make someone else react to that thing that you said, in the hopes of discerning his alignment from his reaction

[Smithereens]

There are some points that can be made here:

>People generally believe that they are able to read behaviour. This is by and large, not correct. Good mafia play comes from the understanding that your assumptions are usually wrong and more often than not, the conclusions that you're so convinced are true are actually false. The mind is egotistical by nature and will assign 'hits' to it's pile of achievements, all the while blaming 'misses' on external factors or by post rationalizing them (this is well documented in scientific literature). Players who have high or exaggerated confidence in their own 'skills' tend to have personalities that easily attribute success to themselves and failures to everything but themselves.

>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.

>Virtually all people, especially mafia players consistently underestimate the complexity of human behaviour. Behaviour and mental processes are mindbogglingly complex and seemingly irrational. The more you learn about them, the less faith you have in these behavioural paradigms called 'universal tells.' There's a saying that the more you know, the more you know you don't know. I've dedicated my life to the scientific study of behaviour and mental processes (psychology) and yeah, all I can really appreciate is how little we actually know, yet how much we think we know.

In mafia, the best thing you can do imo is address your own mental biases. They are the causes of mislynches because they will cause you to believe in your conclusions when the correct course of action is to constantly doubt yourself. Once you become aware of how often you are wrong and how often everyone else is wrong, you'll see how enlightening it is to know that you are wrong.

[Smithereens]

I do not believe "reaction testing" would be standing after the scrutiny of investigation. People do not react a different way simply because they are 'scum.' The fact they win with mafia does not really have as much bearing on their behaviour as you believe it does. If you sit back and think about it, what does a person being scum change about the way they talk to you when you put them up against a reaction test? Put aside the assumptions you associate with scum behaviour. The label itself 'scum' has no effect on behaviour. I might as well call them 'sdfjsl' or 'awpdj' or 'town' or 'afaoc' for all the difference it makes. All you're doing is asking that human being a question. They are not a different type of human being because they are scum, they are still the same person, and will answer the question in the same way. The fact that they are scum is irrelevant to how they answer the question.

Reaction tests obviously look for 'scum tells.' So if you think your tests are successful, it likely means your tests have high sensitivity, which means you would conclude on the basis of your test that the subject is scum, no matter what their affiliation is. This is the most likely cause of your confidence in your reaction tests imo.

[Frozen Angel]

when you say something that doesn't reflect your true thoughts about the game specifically to make someone else react to that thing that you said, in the hopes of discerning his alignment from his reaction

nah its not lieing. and the second part is not a very deep way for looking into what I mean.

its basically a general way for analyzing after researching the differences between the way reacted to different stuff in game . it will tell if they are hiding something or they are over protective about someone else. it will give you a map of associations. The rest is your duty for analyzing what are the meaning of them.

have you ever seen someone in real life detecting other lies? its similar.

[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.

[Frozen Angel]

And you look for the right clues while your analyzing reactions you will detect the abnormalities and differences when someone is scum and when their not.

its not meta reading and it won't shape a meta read. its something unique for the momentum and the current game. its pure analytic based on current facts and it has a high chance of succession if it get done correctly.

[Accountant]

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

[Frozen Angel]

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

thats not what anyone else is doing as far as I see...

so call it whatever

[kuribo]

That's not what anyone is talking about when they say reaction tests. It refers to avert specific (and stupid) type of "gambit" where you say or do something so you can try to "set a trap" or whatever.


http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p7813951

For example

[Frozen Angel]

I hate gambits in general.