A person is smart. People are dumb — The Traitors Reality Shows

Tommy Lee Jones is speaking to Will Smith early in the film Men in Black: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Over a year ago, I stumbled upon a series of shows called The Traitors. I found one hosted by Alan Cumming in Scotland (though featuring people from the USA). I then found an Australian version of the show and another version held in the UK but with people from the UK. I got hooked on watching them because of the interesting view of human behavior which they all revealed. (There is a version — I think the first — in the Netherlands but done in Dutch only.)

A new series with Alan Cumming just started a few weeks ago and it prompted my thoughts on how people behave in all these games as examples of crowd mentality.

Basically, a group of 21–24 people are gathered at a castle or large hotel. They are divided into two groups known as “Faithfuls” and “Traitors” with 3–4 of the latter chosen in secret so the Faithfuls do not know who they are. Then, over the course of many days the Faithfuls try to determine who the Traitors are and banish them from the game because, at the end, there is a large pot of money to be shared by the last few Faithfuls left if they eliminate all the Traitors. But if a single Traitor is left, the Traitor (or Traitors if more than one survives) claim all the money. (The money grows based on “missions” all the players engage in, and they must work cooperatively each mission to earn amounts of money to add to the total.)

Each evening, the Traitors pick a Faithful to “murder,” eliminating them from the game. Each day, all players (remaining) meet to select a person they believe is a Traitor and banish them. It is also possible for Traitors to turn on one another and help vote to banish a Traitor, reducing the number of Traitors that might split the money.

This whole process is based on the party game originally known as Mafia but more recently called Werewolf where the Traitors are werewolves and the Faithful are townspeople the werewolves want to kill before they are uncovered.

My point in writing this post, though, is not to specifically review the shows, but to comment on what I observe about how people behave during the shows when there is some pressure to make decisions in seeking to acquire the growing pot of money.

My main observation is how ineffective the Faithfuls are in identifying the Traitors, at least early in the game.

Let me start, though, with an observation that makes it clear why this is an easily anticipated problem for the Faithfuls. Since are 3–4 traitors and 21–24 total players, the odds are 1 in 6/7 that the Faithfuls can find a Traitor very early. Surprisingly, no one in the game seems to mention this. Then, when the Faithfuls guess incorrectly and banish one of their own, they act shocked and dismayed they have done this. Unless the Traitors perform foolishly early on, this should not be a real surprise. But the Faithfuls never consider the odds against them as something which can result in erroneous banishment.

Of course, some people seem very sure about their voting against another person. But why should they? People claim it is because they see behavior, before or at the banishment session, that makes others look “suspicious.” This is usually for reasons such as:

· someone does, or doesn’t, make eye contact when others think they should or they make too much eye contact;

· someone does, or does not, speak up much when others think they should or they speak up a lot;

· someone seems to express strong concern they know who a Traitor might be (which is interpreted as “deflecting” attention on others) or they don’t easily accuse someone (which is viewed as trying to hide as a Traitor by not giving anything away in their views);

· someone expresses body language that others feel marks them as a traitor or they seem to show no observable changes in their “looks” during interactions.

Of course, any of these behaviors, one way or the other, could be an accurate sign of a Traitor or it may not.

In response to accusations about any of these, those accused may rightfully claim that this is just how they respond. They are not self-conscious about it. It’s just how they are. The lesson people should learn very early is that the game is about suspicion which magnifies the smallest thing others may decide is a negative characteristic. Of course, Traitors are generally too smart to reveal this sort of thing or have very plausible explanations if they do. Traitors can display a great deal of skill in, frankly, lying to the Faithfuls.

If a Faithful gets a gut feel they know a Traitor, they may not have enough solid evidence to convince other Faithfuls. If they continue to push their idea against someone (at a single meeting or a sequence of banishments), others may come back and ask that person to defend their answers. Indeed, anyone who puts forward any seemingly strong belief is often challenged by others to defend themselves. A lot of time is spent in banishment meetings demanding of others, often heatedly, to defend their positions. This heated exchange, itself, can misdirect the group and result in the failed banishment of a Traitor.

But since the Faithfuls must vote on a suspected Traitor, people are forced into decision-making based on limited or downright weak “evidence” for doing so. Quite humorously actually, when it is revealed they have banished a Faithful (and they keep doing it), every time that happens one or more people (including Traitors sometimes) say “We have to start thinking logically.” But every time, early in the game, they do not. They have so little real information go own, so little understanding of one another, that they make decisions incorrectly.

With such little evidence, there are many Faithfuls who state they are not sure but vote against someone anyway. They often note that, without their own evidence, they have been swayed by what others say. They claim that they too have (somewhat) observed what other people claim is reason to vote someone out. So, they go along with it and, generally, the wrong person gets banished, at least early in the game.

Now, as this banishment of Faithfuls is happening, the Traitors often eliminate a player each night through virtual “murder.” I say “often” because sometimes the Traitors are given other behaviors they must carry out which isn’t an instant “murder.” And if a Traitor is found, one of the other actions made available to the remaining Traitors is to select a Faithful to invite to join them as a Traitor. (Sometimes the invitee agrees and sometimes they reject the anonymous invitation. The invitee doesn’t know who invited them.)

Thus, in a single day of the game, 2 Faithfuls may disappear. One might think this makes it easier to pick the Traitors, but that often doesn’t happen until at least half of the Faithfuls are gone. By the time this point is reached, a Traitor may have been identified. Other Traitors may feel this puts a target on them and Traitors may go after one another if only by agreeing with Faithfuls who feel they know at least one Traitor. The remaining Traitors often feel they must go along to vote the other Traitor out to deflect suspicion from them. This often works, for a while.

(Note: Traitors are not allowed to reveal themselves until banished by the majority vote and are likewise not allowed to reveal who the other Traitors are. Though, in one episode of the UK version, a Traitor, seeing the opinions against him, including another Traitor’s, made a comment about his vote during banishment that then made some remaining Faithfuls suspicious about the Traitor who also voted against the one banished.)

A further strategy Faithfuls might use could be to willingly vote another Faithful off, with supposedly good evidence, because they may not like them much for some reason. Nobody on any of the shows has talked about this, so perhaps no one thinks about this. But if you want to win the game, you may feel that reducing the number of Faithfuls will reduce the number of people who might split the money at the end if the Traitors are all eliminated. Eliminating a Faithful if you don’t like their behavior may not actually bother other Faithfuls much. I have observed this and people saying that the mistake of removing another Faithful didn’t bother them because the banished Faithful’s behavior was disagreeable and/or distracting to making “logical” decisions.

Now the whole game is an artificial situation forced by the rules of the game which require people to suspect one another and vote on a banishment each day. But it does show how people, under pressure (or perceived pressure), can revert to dysfunctional behavior and decision-making not based on fact but because they feel they have to take a position of some sort.The game illustrates “mob mentality” which also occurs in real life situations. Years ago, James Surowiecki wrote a book called The Wisdom of Crowds where the point was that aggregated information in groups can result in better decisions than made by any individual in the group. There are 5 things mentioned which it was stated were necessary for this to work:

The game illustrates “mob mentality” which also occurs in real life situations. Years ago, James Surowiecki wrote a book called The Wisdom of Crowds where the point was that aggregated information in groups can result in better decisions than made by any individual in the group. There are 5 things mentioned which it was stated were necessary for this to work:

1. everyone should have information of their own even if a possibly odd interpretation of the facts;

2. everyone’s opinion should not be decided based on the opinions of people around them;

3. everyone can use locally available knowledge;

4. everyone has a way to contribute what they believe to an aggregation resulting in a collective decision;

5. everyone feels the people combining their ideas to be fair.

A couple of these are true in the game, but not all of them. In the game and often in real life, #2 and #5 are always suspect. Sometimes #3 also fails when some people have access to information others do not and that information does not get shared.

The deliberate deception of the game prevents what Surowiecki felt could give a crowd the wisdom to make a better decision than any single individual. The game illustrates what happens when people, for self-interest, pursue their own wishes rather than seek a more collaborative approach that will offer success to all the people.

[I should note that Ted Alspach wrote an article about a year ago entitled “The Fundamental Flaw with The Traitors” (https://opinionatedgamers.com/2024/02/03/the-fundamental-flaw-with-the-traitors/) in which he discusses all the things he feels make the show(s) weak.]