@Sky:
Psychology is fine and dandy if you have something concrete to work with. Something more than the nonexistent stuff Neo has offered. Or, to put it in another way that may be more relateable, Neo essentially put forth a playstyle case against me minus any sort of plays to look at in this game. He is instead assuming that I will pick mafia just because. There's nothing concrete to back up his assertion. Do you see any sort of evidence that points in the direction of me preferring one alignment over another? How about some sort of bias that would at least prop the assertion up even just a little bit?
The essential element is not that you are mafia "just because", but that you are an entity that persists through time and space independently of specific instances of Mafia games. Consequently, your individual preferences inform the kinds of choices you make (i.e. if you are demonstrably the sort of individual who prefers to play as mafia, then in a game where you are given an opportunity to increase your own chances of receiving a mafia role, it is reasonable to assume, on the balance of probability, that you are more likely to be mafia than a player who is psychologically more likely to prefer town roles.
Quote:
So I'm curious, why back him and his nonexistent psychology research on me?
I am, in fact, not backing his assertion. On the contrary, I have no particular reason to accept the premise that you are psychologically inclined to prefer mafia roles. The functional concern was specifically that you chose to counter Neo's argument not with a refutation of the premise (i.e. that you might possess the aforementioned characteristics) or the syllogism itself, but that you tried to construe his point as an arbitrary claim about a so-called Everyman. This is suspicious insofar as you had a simple and innocuous and logically consistent out in the form of "I'm not like that, and if you think that I prefer mafia roles, then you need to prove it."
@Dusky:
I'm arguing that Neo has put forth nothing of worth to back up his assertion that I would tend towards scum. Birden of proof rests on his shoulders. He asserts I would pick in such a way as to be as scummy as possible, but he has nothing to point to in this game or even outside of it.
Sure. As I noted above, I'm perfectly happy with this sort of refutation.
KoD is fundamentally right here. Neo could make two psychological arguments in this situation. The first is that Everyman would attempt to be scum. This is the argument KoD is reapplying to Neo. The second is that KoD specifically would seek to be scum, but to make this argument you would have to show a pattern of behavior for KoD outside of games, where his behavior isnt already tainted by having a role. Since Neo didn't bother to do this his premise isn't founded in fact to an outsiders perspective. Add to this that Neo readily admitted to "picking" KoD, indicating that KoD is irrelevant to Neo's argument, further validating KoD's point.
I think (as, I believe, does Dusky) that it is reasonably clear that Neo intended the second sort of argument, not the first. This is evident in the fact that he picked a target. The quality or absence of evidence
for an argument is separate from the quality of form of the argument itself, i.e. an argument can be logically sound with poor premises, or logically inconsistent with well-evidenced and convincing premises.
Login
Register
Card Search
NGAWiki
Search
