The Importance of Transparency, Cooperation & Effort as Town

[Psyche]

the problem is that too many people think gutreads are credible rather than shitty
for example postie writes that "the less i'm able to justify a scumread the more likely it is that that person is scum"
which frankly is almost definitely false, a self-defeating mindset, and a prototypical example of what's wrong with the current site meta

[Psyche]

It's not even the most important question. You can't improve at tasks you rely on your "gut" to perform in the way you can thinking things through. The possibility of deliberate practice is put aside.

[Psyche]

incorrigible

[Psyche]

yah i don't know how to say more without seeming rude

[Psyche]

Cases matter because the 'current site meta' (meant in a loose sense) requires you to post reasons to lynch people. In a universe where it didn't I would never post them.

Rationally speaking if you want to lynch someone it's best to explain why. Else this game would simply be a bunch of random votes. Without explanation there wouldn't be scum-hunting and town reads to form off content, only VCA.

There's more to the game than analyzing reads and VCA and I think that those are in many ways the least useful part of the game because skilled players fool them easily.

but skilled players don't fool guts?

[Psyche]

there's nothing to gut reads
there is essentially nothing to them, and people only have faith in them because they have a memory bias, keeping in mind times their gut reads were successful and either forgetting or blaming others for gut reads that weren't; they have self-serving biases, diagnosticity biases, and so forth
just like they take their intuition for granted in a random game, they also take for granted their intuitions about their play across many games
loads of scientific studies, loads, have found that most people are confident in their ability to tell if others are lying; in fact, only a few people out of a thousand are "wizards", reliably good at lie detection, many fewer than the number of people who take their gut reads seriously on this site

the thing about gut reads, the reason it's not true that any one person's gut reads are

directionally

different from another persons, is that there isn't really any way to sharpen them
however good your gut reads are, that's how good they'll always be
a basic conclusion of learning theory is that in general skill improvement only comes through deliberate practice
deliberate practice is a highly structured activity engaged in with the specific goal of improving performance; it's different from work, play and simple repetition of a task because it's very introspective, constantly attentive to the relationship between cognitive/psychomotor activities and results
since gut reads are just uncritical summations of sentiment about a player, by definition drawn upon with naivete about how the reads arose, they necessarily exclude the possibility of deliberate practice, and thus of improvement at the game more broadly, except to the extent that gut reads aren't universally relied on

similarly, it's just as easy to fool the gut of a player you don't know as it is to fool that of a player you do
since gut reads by definition don't improve with experience, they're hardly ever

directionally

different between different people
they might be pinged by different kinds of posts, but on average they're still about the same in accuracy

i don't have any illusions that most case-based play is terrible
after all, i've spent a lot of time finding that a lot of the rationales people use for lynching scum are statistically mediocre
but the difference between terrible case-based play and gut-based play is that people who stick to the latter are incorrigible:
they have no path to self-improvement besides random chance

[Psyche]

If your gut reads have been accurate in the past, then yeah you have a reason to trust the read. If they haven't, you don't.

most people who think their gut reads are more accurate than not have deceived themselves

[Psyche]

Accountant's wrong, theoretically. Most of what happens in the brain, especially how things happen in the brain, aren't consciously inspectable. That's, uh, why introspectionism is no longer a thing in psych or neuro.

[Psyche]

I disagree strongly that gut reads don't improve with experience. The way your intuition operates is based off of past experiences.

You think you know how your intuition operates? That goes against a lot of what you've already said in the thread.

[Psyche]

But I think the average person's gut is better than random.

6%

[Psyche]

I could probably generate a game to test how close the actual efficacy of your reads are to what you think they are.
Furthermore, you could probably play the game repeatedly to see if your reads improve at the rate you think they do.
Under what conditions do you think a working gut read is applied? Does it require close reading of a post, or does it only need skimming? Of an iso or of a whole game?

[Psyche]

With a few exceptions, basically all of our introspections are incomplete or wholly inaccurate.