Really what I think it says is to watch out for confirmation bias. If you think someone is scum and you read over your posts and just look for things that would confirm your assumption--things they've done that are scummy--you might miss something that makes them look innocent.
For example, looking at andres and saying:
1) Andres seems innocent
2) If andres was mafia he would try and appear innocent and is capable of doing so
1) If Andres were mafia he would still be alive because he can't nightkill himself
2) Andres is still alive
3) Therefore Andres is mafia.
When really you should be looking at:
1) Mafia don't usually put themselves on the chopping block
2) Andres didn't break the tie when he was tied
Of course in mafia there is much less certainty. The second set doesn't disprove the rule, and the first two arguments taken together (that Andres appears innocent and yet hasn't been killed) still counts as a legitimate argument. But you have to weigh everything together, not just look at the arguments against.
Bookmarks