[ Hah. He huffs a derisive noise, clearly unimpressed with the event turnaround. Not that he particularly cares for nor about Vlad, but it was the principle of it all. ]
That "trial" wasn't a controlled environment. Anyone's emotions could sway the public, change the tide of the vote. If you're well-liked, maybe people won't vote you. If you're disliked, all it would take it just one accusation.
Normally, I would say, "we could at least encourage them to look at the evidence," but...
[the evidence sure did lead them to someone innocent!]
I don't like the idea that there's no sure way to know until the votes are cast, and even then, if we're wrong, there's little to nothing to be done to make it right.
...in theory we can avoid it, if no one else is killed, but...
[but, they didn't catch this week's killer, and shi qingxuan can't help but think that the chances of them not killing someone else are depressingly low.
and even if, by some chance, they don't - well, this week has just gone and shown everyone that it's an option.]
Prisoner's Dilemma. Keynesian Beauty Contest. [ He rattles them off like he's had them ready -- and in a sense, sort of. He had just talked about it to Law yesterday. ]
"Reason" and "Logic" don't often work in societies, because emotions and self-interest will always sway the public to one direction or another. Humans just aren't capable of being rational.
Oh, ah. They're both thought problems, like hypothetical societal riddles.
The Prisoner's Dilemma is a game theory scenario, where two criminals are caught and jailed separately for their crimes, for a sentence each of three years. The warden gives each of them a special deal: if you rat out the other criminal, then your own sentence will be reduced, while the other serves an additional two years. Alternatively, if the other criminal rats you out, then the opposite holds true. If both people end up ratting each other out, then the sentence is extended by one year for both. Finally, if both people don't rat each other out, then there isn't enough evidence to keep them, and they're set free after their three year charge.
In a way, it's relevant to our scenario, because the "ratting out" is the votes. If we all cooperate, then we could come away with the best deal, which is no more extra lives lost to the executions; however, just a single vote could lead to your own death, which makes it so that it would be in your self-interest to vote someone else just in case.
The Keynesian Beauty Contest on the other hand, is more about economics, but I think the scenario applies decently. In this scenario, a town posts five pictures of beautiful women, and asks the populace to vote for the most beautiful woman. All the people who voted the most popular woman are awarded a prize; because of this, people won't vote for who they personally think is the most beautiful, but rather, who they think will be the most beautiful in the eyes of everyone else.
In summary, it's a scenario where people are rewarded for choosing what's popular, not what's objectively right. Which I think is also happening in the trials, due to the high pressure environment.
The wisest thing, of course, is to either not vote, or vote the appropriate culprit -- the most "beautiful". But look how easily we're swayed as a people.
Kaz's only reason for voting Beauregard was because someone else said so.
You could ask every single person in this building to cooperate in peace, but what good will it do? I'm sure there will be people who won't believe you, may even doubt your intentions. Or maybe others who will take advantage of it, and take the opportunity to instead use everyone's lowered guard as a chance for murder.
You don't need to apologize for telling the truth.
[she stares at the bottle of wine like she's contemplating whether she wants to drink in moderation like she said she would, or if she wants to pour herself another glass and down it in one gulp.]
The sooner we accept this place for what it is, the sooner we can figure out what to do. We might not be able to make the ideal choice in every situation, but I want us to bring this to as ideal an end as possible.
no subject
That "trial" wasn't a controlled environment. Anyone's emotions could sway the public, change the tide of the vote. If you're well-liked, maybe people won't vote you. If you're disliked, all it would take it just one accusation.
no subject
[the evidence sure did lead them to someone innocent!]
I don't like the idea that there's no sure way to know until the votes are cast, and even then, if we're wrong, there's little to nothing to be done to make it right.
no subject
[ God knows why it is the way that it is... ]
One little mistake, and the cost is a whole life, or more.
no subject
[but, they didn't catch this week's killer, and shi qingxuan can't help but think that the chances of them not killing someone else are depressingly low.
and even if, by some chance, they don't - well, this week has just gone and shown everyone that it's an option.]
no subject
"Reason" and "Logic" don't often work in societies, because emotions and self-interest will always sway the public to one direction or another. Humans just aren't capable of being rational.
no subject
[???????????????????????????]
1/2
The Prisoner's Dilemma is a game theory scenario, where two criminals are caught and jailed separately for their crimes, for a sentence each of three years. The warden gives each of them a special deal: if you rat out the other criminal, then your own sentence will be reduced, while the other serves an additional two years. Alternatively, if the other criminal rats you out, then the opposite holds true. If both people end up ratting each other out, then the sentence is extended by one year for both. Finally, if both people don't rat each other out, then there isn't enough evidence to keep them, and they're set free after their three year charge.
In a way, it's relevant to our scenario, because the "ratting out" is the votes. If we all cooperate, then we could come away with the best deal, which is no more extra lives lost to the executions; however, just a single vote could lead to your own death, which makes it so that it would be in your self-interest to vote someone else just in case.
2/2
In summary, it's a scenario where people are rewarded for choosing what's popular, not what's objectively right. Which I think is also happening in the trials, due to the high pressure environment.
[ Sorry for being a nerd, ]
no subject
I see... in the first case, of course the ideal thing to do would be to not vote at all, but seeing as we don't know who got away yesterday...
[then again, if they're all watching each other, no one would be able to secretly vote, would they?]
But for the second - what, you think people voted for whoever was most likely to get more votes...?
no subject
The wisest thing, of course, is to either not vote, or vote the appropriate culprit -- the most "beautiful". But look how easily we're swayed as a people.
Kaz's only reason for voting Beauregard was because someone else said so.
no subject
sqx is too nice to actually say this]
...I see... you're right about that.
no subject
Tricky balance, isn't it?
no subject
no subject
You could ask every single person in this building to cooperate in peace, but what good will it do? I'm sure there will be people who won't believe you, may even doubt your intentions. Or maybe others who will take advantage of it, and take the opportunity to instead use everyone's lowered guard as a chance for murder.
[ Drink. ]
no subject
[drains her entire glass, pours another, and then drains that too tbh.]
no subject
Yeah, he understands. He takes a sip of his own wine. ]
Sorry.
no subject
[she stares at the bottle of wine like she's contemplating whether she wants to drink in moderation like she said she would, or if she wants to pour herself another glass and down it in one gulp.]
The sooner we accept this place for what it is, the sooner we can figure out what to do. We might not be able to make the ideal choice in every situation, but I want us to bring this to as ideal an end as possible.
no subject
That's true. If there's an endgame to all of this, then the sooner it's found, the better. Less lives lost, less lives risked.
no subject
Well, supposedly the more we indulge, the faster this will be over, didn't they say?
no subject
I wonder how much indulging is "enough".
How have you been indulging so far?
no subject
[so that's a yes]
no subject
Well, it definitely seems like you can hold it at any rate.
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)