In response to comment by [deleted] on "Progress"
Comment author: Clarity1992 05 June 2012 06:12:03AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for that, really good!

In response to comment by Clarity1992 on "Progress"
Comment author: Clarity1992 11 June 2012 06:42:55AM 4 points [-]

Why the downvote? I'm expressing gratitude that goes beyond the anonymity and single point karma increase of merely clicking thumbs up, and clarifying that the answer was acceptable to me.

My reasoning is that by stating this publicly I make it more likely people will respond in detail to such requests in future, as they see that (some) such requesters do read the responses and do appreciate them. I am also making clear that the original request was earnest and not rhetorical.

In response to comment by Clarity1992 on "Progress"
Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2012 11:37:14PM 6 points [-]

What I mean by the former is that the status hierarchy for females is more diffuse and has fewer strata; there are coalitions of females, and typically eldest females occupy a de facto "alpha" position.

As to paternity certainty -- yeah, bonobos don't form any sort of exclusive or permanent sexual connection. Male/male, male/female, female/female and group sex are all standard behaviors (they're also the only nonhuman primate species seen engaged in mouth/tongue kissing and oral sex). Instead of "securing access" to desirable mates, you pretty much don't know who's going to be the parent of your future children, and it doesn't matter; both males and females will socialize, care for and protect children.

In response to comment by [deleted] on "Progress"
Comment author: Clarity1992 05 June 2012 06:12:03AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for that, really good!

In response to "Progress"
Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2012 12:44:28PM 20 points [-]

Pre-human male hominids, we infer from observing bonobos and chimpanzees, were dominated by one alpha male per group, who got the best food and most of the females.

Um. Bonobos don't work that way. They're "dominated", if you can use the term, by less-vertical coalitions of comparitively high-status females. Food is shared widely, paternity certainty is a nonissue.

We're equidistant from them and chimps, talking divergence from common ancestors, so it's really less clear-cut than you think how well chimp analogies suffice to model proto-hominids -- both are equally-close relations, but their lifestyles and social strategies differ tremendously.

In response to comment by [deleted] on "Progress"
Comment author: Clarity1992 04 June 2012 03:08:39PM 2 points [-]

Could you elaborate on "less-vertical coalitions of comparitively high-status females" and "paternity certainty is a nonissue" please?

Comment author: [deleted] 06 May 2012 04:42:44PM *  0 points [-]

The below was originally posted by "Jacinto", an account I created in my secondary browser a few minutes ago, since I couldn't remember my login to thumbs up. Then I commented in the throwaway account by accident!

Comment author: Clarity1992 06 May 2012 04:55:15PM *  0 points [-]

Great post. The meet sounds awesome and touched on many things I'm interested in. I'd love to be on the same continent to attend these more regularly than once a year.

One possible typo: "This was followed by multiple passes for people to affiliated with any proposed topic".

Comment author: Clarity1992 21 April 2012 10:23:54AM *  3 points [-]

I love the bit at the end where Ibrahim (market trader) says it's "the hardest money I've ever had to work for" and Nick (charity worker) jokes "he obviously hasn't worked in the charity sector to try and get money", then the look on Nick's face when Ibrahim says he's going to respray his yacht!

I felt that Nick displayed a good mix of hot and cold rationality.

Comment author: Clarity1992 11 April 2012 10:53:40AM 4 points [-]

Why "summary for impatient readers" not "summary"?

Werewolf, Cambridge UK Less Wrong Meetup April 1st 2012

4 Clarity1992 02 April 2012 11:46AM

There is already a post related to this meetup but it concerns a discussion which took place after I had left so I will write about the games of Werewolf. Please post your thoughts too and correct any inaccuracies.

Thoughts:

  • Most people said that this was very good fun and I suspect those that didn't still really enjoyed it.

  • Each game lasted about 20 minutes.

  • I was late and observed the first game. I remember Ai was given a werewolf card but she didn't realise so the game was played with her as a villager.

  • When Douglas suggested people give reasons for lynching Thomas one that stood out was "he talks too much". This seems to go with Douglas' later observation that the game is all about information, whether that is obtained by careful choice of sheriff/lynching to maximise what is learned next round or by picking up on what people have said, how they have said it, and how much they have said. Personally I played it very much on instinct and watching for tells, letting others do the logical reasoning (!).

  • Jon left after game one. There was some discussion about whether he was coming back. "His body language seemed dismissive like 'nah, I'm not into this'", "Really? I didn't get that impression!", "I disagree with your analysis. Past evidence of Jon leaving suggests he will return", "I think he would have said goodbye if he wasn't coming back. Since he didn't I assume he is returning". I found it interesting how we applied rationality principles to this.

  • Generally the sheriff/lynching discussions would begin with sincere considerations of outcome trees then as soon as anyone said "but that's what you'd say if you were a werewolf!" or "she seemed a little quick to agree with that!" or "he's swallowing a lot while talking!" it switched to accusations and double bluffs.

  • There were quite a few pieces of reasoning relating to proximity to people. e.g. "I'm sure I heard movement next to me 'last night'". My immediate instinct was that this is outside of the rules and unsporting, but obviously that isn't the case with this game!

  • Something I found especially inspired was Alexey (as a werewolf) in game two claiming to be the seer after Thomas (the actual seer) had already told everyone that he himself was. Alexey argued that he had withheld the information to see who would try to pretend to be the seer and then he would know who one of the werewolves was. Most people weren't convinced but it was very entertaining.

  • We decided, on Alexey's suggestion, that a coin toss is acceptable to decide a tied vote. Jonathan remarked that British coins land on heads 53 times out of 100. Does anyone have a link for that?

  • Douglas did a great job giving the game some life with the storytelling style of delivery. I don't know what the proper term for this is, or whether you're traditionally supposed to play werewolves that way (I suspect you are), but it was cool. As was Thomas' replication of it when he was GM.

  • Ramana spent the most time dead and made the point that it's very different watching from the outside compared to playing. He said you can perceive much better what people are trying to do and who is gullible.

  • Douglas explained that for the villagers it is always best to lynch someone because otherwise the next day you'll just be in the exact same position with one less villagers' vote against the same number of werewolves' votes. This seems definitely true, but oddly counter-intuitive given that you're more likely to lynch a villager by mistake, the more of them you have.

  • Between games three and four there was a false start because someone had forgotten they had a werewolf card and then suddenly and noisily realised they were supposed to have their eyes open. Oops!

  • I hadn't played before but was familiar with the concept and had been meaning to try it with friends for a long time. If you're in a similar position, then bump it up your priority list. It's awesome!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

continue reading »
Comment author: Clarity1992 01 November 2011 01:31:49PM 8 points [-]

Taken.

Comment author: gjm 12 February 2011 06:20:38PM 1 point [-]

Who was there, in the end?

Comment author: Clarity1992 12 February 2011 08:42:01PM 0 points [-]

Me, Chris, CJ, Emily, Jonathan, Roman, Arnie, Richard, xrchz, and I think three/four others to whom I apologise for not remembering/catching their names (Tim? Another Richard?).

Comment author: Clarity1992 12 February 2011 05:38:14PM 1 point [-]

I enjoyed that. Props to xrchz for organising :D

Enjoyed the cryonics discussion especially (haha, being the one to raise it and then sit back and listen to others).

View more: Next