Forum Mafia as an exercise in Conspiracists’ thinking

[Horatius]

Some of you may be familiar with the game known as Forum Mafia. I’ve just recently finished such a game (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121229), wherein I was playing one of the Bad Guys. I found this to be an interesting and enlightening look into the mindset that the CT proponents probably live in all the time.

In particular, I’m referring to the events of Day 2. A sudden change in attitude by one of the Good Guy players forced me to completely change my strategy for the day (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3975414#post3975414). I had posted a few plausible scenarios for who might be conspiring with whom; however, these theories all had some major flaw in them. They didn’t explain all of the events that had happened.

Then, one afternoon as I was biking after work, and thinking a bit about the game, I remembered a post that jsfisher had made, that provided a plausible strategy that two other players could have been playing. I realized that, based on this proposed strategy, I could re-cast the entire days events into a single narrative that explained every event (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3976789#post3976789), while at the same time implicating two innocent players, and not implicating those of us who were actually conspiring.

This is an interesting test case of how someone can “connect the dots” of unrelated events, and produce a narrative that superficially explains things, while at the same time, is also completely and utterly wrong.

I have a few other thoughts that I’ll add later, if others think this is topic worth pursuing.

[jsfisher]

That sudden change was by ZirconBlue, right? Although I still found his play confusing, on the second day he did manage to reverse all the bad will I'd attributed to him on the first day.

[Horatius]

That sudden change was by ZirconBlue, right? Although I still found his play confusing, on the second day he did manage to reverse all the bad will I'd attributed to him on the first day.



That's right. And it was even my fault, since killing you was what lead him to reevaluate his position.

Goes to show, real conspiracies are hard!

[Mobyseven]

I'd certainly like to hear some more of your thoughts on the matter.

I've gotta say that the game was a paranoia inducing experience, and while I hadn't thought about it before you've surfaced an interesting topic in my mind - namely, that if I truly believed there was a conspiracy, how horrible it would be.

Just playing the game had me worried. On the first day I thought I had a bad guy pegged, and he turned out to be good (indeed, he turns out to be the guy who saves the day in the end). On the second day I started second guessing myself, not being sure who the good guys and bad guys were; yet knowing that someone was a bad guy, and was out to get me.

If I believed that was happening in real life, I wouldn't be on an internet forum chortling away. I'd probably be trying to get the hell away from the conspiracy, or possibly actively fighting it (and by active I mean active, not 'I'm an internet warrior!').

I highly recommend a game of forum mafia to anyone who's ever said, "If I believed there was a conspiracy, I'd..." It's illuminating.

[Fiona]

It is interesting. I was actually amazed by the power of irrational nonsense. For example at one point Mobyseven was believing a story which would have led inevitably to his own death because it was based on his guilt. Scary stuff :)

[Horatius]

I highly recommend a game of forum mafia to anyone who's ever said, "If I believed there was a conspiracy, I'd..." It's illuminating.



I agree. This was my first game, and playing the bad guy makes things a bit different. I knew exactly what was going on, and was doing everything in my power to enhance the paranoia you mentioned.

While you were disturbed by the feelings of paranoia, I was disturbed by the whole "cognitive dissonance" thing. On the one hand, I knew I was the bad guy, and that almost everything I was saying was, on some level, a lie. But at the same time, I had to believe the lie myself, in order to make my posts as believable as possible.

This is probably how some of our more trollish truthers here feel a lot of the time - knowingly stringing together unrelated things to reach a predetermined conclusion, while steadfastly ignoring those bits that don't fit the grand narrative.

It's also interesting exactly how much you can lie, without actually deliberately misstating any verifiable facts. I made one error - when I accused Fiona about lying about my and ZB's correction to her, I had honestly missed her earlier post. But beyond that, I don't think I said anything that was demonstrably a lie, something that even Rasmus admitted at one point, and yet, my entire narrative was a lie, start to finish.

[Horatius]

It is interesting. I was actually amazed by the power of irrational nonsense. For example at one point Mobyseven was believing a story which would have led inevitably to his own death because it was based on his guilt. Scary stuff :)



That was my favourite part! ;)



This experience also gives some insight into the motivations of the CTists. Just after I posted the Grand Theory That Rasmus And Fiona Did It, and both Moby and ZB posted that they thought it was an interesting idea that merited further thought, I was totally stoked to see that I had gotten them to buy it, at least on some level. I could see someone quite easily getting addicted to that feeling, and end up wanting to see how far he could drag someone else down the rabbit hole.

[Fiona]

Aye :). I did appreciate it when I was not raging. But the double bind was also instructive. As I tried to show it was nonsense people became annoyed. Yet not challenging it was not an option because folk were buying it. And your partner made a nice job of trying to stop me giving detailed defence - lucky for me I am not easily embarrassed :p

[jsfisher]

That's right. And it was even my fault, since killing you was what lead him to reevaluate his position.

Goes to show, real conspiracies are hard!


I had thought at the time that Mashuna would have been my choice for assassination Night 1 (assuming he was a loyalist, of course). I figured that would provide the least possible information going into Day 2.

If I recall correctly, too, the first question being asked Day 2 was who benefited most from my death. The players wanted a direct, dot-to-dot connection. It was the wrong question, though. It would have been who draws no notice whatsoever from my death.

I think this all speaks to conspiracy theories, too.

[Mobyseven]

It is interesting. I was actually amazed by the power of irrational nonsense. For example at one point Mobyseven was believing a story which would have led inevitably to his own death because it was based on his guilt. Scary stuff :)

Indeed. As I think I mentioned, it was the main thing that made me withdraw my vote for you - for a while I was trying to figure it all out, going, "Right, so if Fiona is a guilty one, we should figure out who her partner is." Then I realised that the only logical option, and the only option being advocated by anyone else was that I was the partner.

And that just didn't seem to gel.

[Horatius]

I had thought at the time that Mashuna would have been my choice for assassination Night 1 (assuming he was a loyalist, of course). I figured that would provide the least possible information going into Day 2.

If I recall correctly, too, the first question being asked Day 2 was who benefited most from my death. The players wanted a direct, dot-to-dot connection. It was the wrong question, though. It would have been who draws no notice whatsoever from my death.

I think this all speaks to conspiracy theories, too.


I guess this goes to the experience issue. Our plan pre-day 1 was to assassinate Rasmus, as he was the most experienced player, if no one else stood out as a better choice. We switched to you because you seemed to make the best arguments on day 1 - we didn't want you giving any more good analyses!

[Fiona]

A victim of your own success jsfisher. Well that is a compliment in a way, and it did seem the most likely explanation.

[Horatius]

Indeed. As I think I mentioned, it was the main thing that made me withdraw my vote for you - for a while I was trying to figure it all out, going, "Right, so if Fiona is a guilty one, we should figure out who her partner is." Then I realised that the only logical option, and the only option being advocated by anyone else was that I was the partner.

And that just didn't seem to gel.



As jsfisher noted earlier, there was a tendency to assign significance to events that wasn't warranted. The last minute shift to nolynch was the most dramatic event of day 1, and drew all the attention, even though it in actuality had no bearing on our plans, and indeed, was completely counter to what we wanted to happen! But you got so fixed on the idea that it had to be significant that, at least for a short while, you couldn't even see such a huge flaw in the reasoning!

[Kittyclaws]

I have no talent for lying. (Duh.) I found it challenging to maintain an innocent persona while trying to subtly encourage the suspicions flying about. I had to play as if I were truly an innocent. I can't imagine trying, in real life, to deliberately confuse and mislead people into buying into conspiracy theories, having to keep up the paranoia, answer accusations with blatant ignorance and lies. Of course, the true CTist believes the lies. I imagine that must make it easier to "play" that role.

Regarding the recently finished game:
Well-played to all. I think I've become addicted to the game. I look forward to playing again after all the others on the waiting list have had a chance.

[Dave Rogers]

Some of you may be familiar with the game known as Forum Mafia. I’ve just recently finished such a game (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121229), wherein I was playing one of the Bad Guys. I found this to be an interesting and enlightening look into the mindset that the CT proponents probably live in all the time.

I've been following the game with interest, and I think it's a very valid point that it can be so easy to re-interpret events to fit your own pre-determined narrative, and so fool people into believing that you actually have some evidence for your outlandish point of view. However, I get the feeling that you missed a crucial aspect of the 9-11 truther experience, because of one thing you said that stood out.

I could re-cast the entire days events into a single narrative that explained every event (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3976789#post3976789)

We're still waiting for them to do that.

Dave

[Horatius]

We're still waiting for them to do that.

Dave



Okay, yes, that' a valid criticism. The problem is, I wasn't trying to sell them DVDs, I was actually trying to convince them!


It's also interesting to note the timeline of how I brought up my CT, and how it fell apart on me. At first, the connected dots seemed to be persuasive, and a few people were giving serious consideration to my ideas. But, we had an unexpected deadline extension, which gave them enough time to really think about what I was saying, so they started to realize how full of it I was.

As I said to ddt, the game runner, in PM: on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, you can only sling a line of ******** for so long before they get wise to you....

[Horatius]

I have no talent for lying. (Duh.) I found it challenging to maintain an innocent persona while trying to subtly encourage the suspicions flying about. I had to play as if I were truly an innocent.


This emphasizes something that we should also note: the best lies are those that contain mostly truth, so that anyone checking the details of your story will be inclined to believe the overall story. In my CT, I didn't lie about any of the little details, although I did make one mistake, so anyone who went back to read a particular post would see that I was being "honest".

The lie wasn't in the details, it was in the arrangement of the details. This is what Alex Jones and his Prison Planet stories do: they are almost always based on some sort of fact (It's admitted!), but they re-interpret those facts' places in the real world to fit their fantasy.