= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
falenas108 comments on Bayesianism and use of Evidence in Social Deduction Games - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (8)
Although it is better to use Bayesian probabilities to keep track of who you think is a spy, in a normal game it is advantageous to appear sure that you know who the spy is. By appearing sure, you are more likely to convince other people, which means you get to stay in the game longer and you're more likely to catch the spy, assuming you're part of the resistance.
Seeming sure of who the spies are is a strong strategy -- but it's equally strong whether you're resistance or a spy. Accurate Bayesian reasoning is only a strong strategy for the resistance, since spies don't want the truth to come out. Spies want to lie either way, but it's much easier to lie in a finger-pointing contest than in a discussion of evidence and probability updating.
Using explicit Bayesian reasoning is less likely to lead your teammates into bad judgments of the kind I touched on (stemming from over/under-confidence), and it gives your teammates evidence that you are resistance.
Not when you're playing with other LW readers: in our group, acting certain without communicable evidence is a reasonably clear "tell".
Yeah, I wasn't talking about games with LWers, I was talking about games with the average person. That's what I meant by "normal game," but it seems that I should have been more explicit.
Edit: I also haven't played resistance before, and assumed it was similar to mafia. But, this game is much more complicated, and seeming certain isn't as useful here as it is in those games.