Among us thread

You said that in the trolling thread.

It's implied... "you play the game online, I played it offline"

Try thinking... I know it's hard. I'll give you a few minutes.

I guess that's what they call consistency.

I'm not stupid. I don't want to argue with you because you're the "legendary llama" so you will always beat me.

Maybe true. I'm just in a fighting mood at the moment.

My legend doesn't beat people, my words do.

That would be my guess, yes.

True.

Now can we stop arguing 🤷‍♂️

Ok

I'm (probably?) not as much of a jerk as I sometimes seem to be

I don't know what to say

I'd much rather talk about the psychology I learned from other videos... before watching anything "among us" related.

I saw in one video disguised toast said this one player is usually guilty when they respond with "why" or "how" but are innocent when responding with "what"?"

This fits into the psychology I had already learned. The goal of liars is to convince you of something. They want to know "how" and "why" because those are inherently persuasive domains... of course they do this subconsciously, they don't actually understand why they instinctively ask "why?"

But "what" is different. An innocent person's goal is an exchange of information. If I'm innocent, and you're interrogating me, I want to give you as much information as possible... that way not only do you not pursue me, but you're better able to find the real culprit. Asking "what" is information focused. It's the same as asking "explain it to me"

Sure "how" and "why" can be explanatory... but in particular the question "why" is suspicious because it can be answered with the word "because" which is known to be a word that carries subconscious persuasiveness... for example in tests where bullsh!t answers were given to questions, listeners reported that they were more trusting of explanations that started with the word "because." Asking "why" is closely tied to that.

---

But also, "what" is tied to surprise. It can double as asking someone to repeat themselves... and for example in police interviews innocent people's unintentional emotions are of surprise. Guilty people's unintentional show of emotions are of fear. More than the other two, asking "what" communicates shock.

How is definitely sus, but when someone calls an emergency meeting when no one is killed , I say why?

Saying why in that situation is fine. But if someone accuses you and you ask "why" that can indicate (depending on the individual) guilt.

I mean, the most useful thing is being good at the game... understanding how the tasks work (how long they take, which are common, which have secondary, etc), and understanding things like you should kill clearly innocent people, because then the suspicious people are left alive which gives you more cover.

But I was mostly interested in the videos from a purely psychological standpoint.

Do you think if someone said proof? would that be sus?

"Proof" asks for information, so that doesn't seem suspicious to me.

But again it depends. "Proof" is a very high standard. More specifically a person should ask for evidence. So if a highly intelligent person asked for "proof" I'd be suspicious, but if someone who is less precise with their words asked for "proof" I would probably ignore it.

If someone asked for "evidence" I'd be less suspicious for sure.

I think the reason people don't do that is because it's longer to type (wastes discussion time even if its 5 seconds) and it kind of sounds weird. For ex, think if you were in a game. If you said eveidence? wouldn't that sound kinda weird?

Well, I've never played the game... and again, this game is mostly played by people younger than me, so the inexact word "proof" is probably fine for most players.

But I will say that another useful tactic (whether it's in a game of among us or in a police station) is saying as little as possible... of course people who don't talk are sus, so what you can do is keep asking things like "explain it to me" over and over (or something similar). It would simultaneously put the onus of talking on them, while creating the illusion that you're earnestly interested in brining more facts to light.