Use the code TREE for 51% off World Anvil with the link worldanvil.com/?c=mltt Or else try it out for free!! Patreon link: www.patreon.com/mylittlethoughttree Buymeacoffee link: www.buymeacoffee.com/mltt Second channel: www.youtube.com/@ThoughtlessTree Dave's Walks video: ruclips.net/video/5-Cfa81kMr4/видео.htmlsi=b11ltXlvAPVM4Qtx
there is already a show like that. It’s called The Mole. Was hosted by Anderson Cooper in the USA early 2000’s. You might be able to find the season online
@@wintersun398 that show (as well as this one I think) is based on a Dutch one that has been running for ages now but it's in Dutch ofcourse. Wie is de Mol (first might have started in Belgium)
@@wintersun398there was a more recent one, I think I watched one on netflix about 4 years ago? I think they were renewing for season 2 but idk if it ever happened
It’s funny how in this series they keep thinking the suspected traitors are playing the double bluff. And then the actual traitors never play the double bluff
One of the things that I find interesting is this idea of the traitors that develops as the show goes on. At the beginning, many players tell Claudia they would consider being a traitor. But quite quickly the faithful - including the ones who said they'd happily play as traitors - start to imagine that the traitors are fundamentally different from the faithful. The traitors must feel this way, or that way. The traitors are mocking and cruel and cunning. The traitors are laughing at us. And all the while I'm here thinking "you told Claudia straight to her face that you'd make a good traitor".
I love Traitors, so I’m not complaining here - but yes, exactly, this is what drives me mad about the players. It never seems to occur to them that not everything means someone is a traitor. Being a GP doesn’t make you a traitor. The fact you might commit a crime for £1million (Meryl) doesn’t make you a traitor. Wanting to win the game doesn’t make you a traitor. The only thing that makes you a traitor is being chosen to be one. You need evidence of people actually doing something to benefit the traitors - not just evidence that they are playing the game. Because everyone is playing the game.
I think the GP thing is the faithful trying to get into the mindset of the producers and what would make good television. For example when the two sisters first came on screen I immediately called that one of them would be a traitor.
The problem with this game is that if a faithful is pretty sure they know at least one traitor, the best thing for them to do is keep them in the game and vote out faithfuls to the end. The opportunity to recruit more traitors completely disincentivises the faithful to vote out someone they believe is a traitor as they have to start looking for new traitors all over again. There should be no recruitment at all in my opinion.
@ I get your point, and when I played an ORG of Traitors that was exactly what the faithful did. But there *has* to be recruitment otherwise the show can’t work. If all the Traitors got voted out by episode 3, the series would end and that can’t happen. Traitors is a game but more than that it’s a TV show so it needs to function as a TV show.
I'd like to put forward a theory I've had for some time. There is little incentive to vote out traitors in the early stages of the game as they will simply recruit more, instead it may be more advantageous to vote out who you think your biggest competitors will be should you get to the latter stages regardless of their traitor/faithful status. Therefore contestants may be voting out competitors as soon as a decent opportunity arises regardless of if they truly believe them to be a traitor or not. In Linda's case they may believe that she's a traitor but not see her as much of a competitor so they are deliberately keeping her in the game.
I don't see this talked about enough. The narrative of the show is traitors against faithful, but if you take those emotion inducing words away and look at the actual game the faithful are not a team; at least not until the very end. Getting rid of traitors before the endgame actually makes things harder for the faithful as it is impossible to get rid of them all and by banishing a traitor you invite a new traitor to be recruited, so now there's a traitor you have no evidence against. Ironically, Dan knew that the game is not a team game, acting selfishly throughout, but didn't realise that by playing that way openly he was making himself a target.
Yes but most players arent smart enough to see it that way. Most faithfuls like Dan who figure that out and try to do it are seen as bad faithfuls which makes them look like traitors instead
You certainly touched on it, but something the contestants never seem to actually listen to is motivation. Dan states his logic is to gunk the person who will suspect him least so he can stay in the mini game and EARN A SHIELD. A huge motivator for a faithful who may be up for murder. But no he’s ’suspicious’ because he acted in self-interest. 😒
A good point but I think too many of the players are now in too deep in the lore to let Dan slide there. Traitors in past seasons have acted like a faithful in trying their absolute darndest to get a shield, but that's because they want to look like a faithful. Same could be said of Dan in this situation, we in the audience however, have the benefit of knowing his motives were good.
There’s a consistent “othering” that happens every season, and I think season 3 REALLY demonstrates it. If it’s a behaviour/action/phrasing that contestant doesn’t normally do, then it’s immediate suspicion, rather than, logically, the person just being their own individual self.
17:25 I genuinely think she was so upset because black hair works a lot differently to European hair. If she's chemically straightened it she might be fine (even then her hair might be somewhat fragile) but if she's straightened it with heat or something her hair is quite frankly, effed. She's can't just 'wash it out' it'll immediately shrivel/shrink up and risk more heat damage by having to hot comb it again in such a short time, and regrease or gel it. Honestly watching it myself, I could imagine her terror before that challenge even began. Weather and humidity is already a huge thing in ruining lots of black hairstyles, having literal gunk eff up the entire thing is a nightmare. Also would have been rough if her hair was natural and she had to get it out of her curls. Dan prob had no awareness of this.
I'm black myself and I would say she's fully responsible. Anybody's who watched the game knows there's water and other elements involved that may affect your hair. She should've done braids like if she were going on vacation and also carried a swim cap or something.
Can't remember who but I remember seeing a contestant only have the gunk poured on their back/robe, made me wonder if they could have done the same to Minah because she openly complained about getting it in her hair beforehand
Thought the same. The way so many people didn’t realise this has to be pure ignorance because it’s so obvious that its more complex than the white girls getting their hair gunged if you just stop and think for half a second
I think one of the masked men were only pouring the goop on people's backs, and another was pouring it in hair. I think that was pretty f'd up for production to even include this element in the game. It seemed just poorly executed and mean. Personally, they could have just had blind votes without needing to "mark" anyone. Will be curious to compare this to the US version of the challenge and see if they keep this part in.
@@MattJarjoura Agree, I'm a white man and the first thing I thought on seeing Minah be gunked was, 'oh no, you don't do that to a black woman's hair.' Given not everyone had it in their hair I really couldn't believe there was nobody in production who could think of this. Maybe they wanted her really riled up for the game, did provide a great fall out.
I REALLY hate how the south asian male players get treated in Traitors. They are often very smart and play the game well, but they all constantly get voted out of the game because of their personality or smarts. And it's always not based on how they are playing. Kaz deserved better and a fair chance to play. Also this season everyone keeps voting people out who they know isn't a traitor just to save themselves from elimination.
i've only watched season 2 and 3, but when you say "the south asian male players" are you literally just talking about Kaz...? Cus Jaz made it all the way to the final 3 lol
@@onetwo8847 I'm talking about Kaz (S3) & Imran, Rayan (S1) from what I remember. I know Jaz made it to the end, but he literally wasn't trusted for most of the game by anyone and was only kept because if he got murdered it would help the faithful know who the traitor is because he was intelligent and onto most of them. So Jaz still counts since he also didn't get to play fairly due to being excluded from the group. Plus he like Kaz was the only South Asian male on their season, it just comes off as a way to easily be excluded due to prejudiced notions. Faozia also faced this and is a south asian woman.
The Traitors is an excellent study in group dynamics and human behaviour. The way that everyone feels the need to group up and form relationships: they call each other friends after 2-3 days, which is wild to me! They’re strangers! The way they do this and place all of their trust in these complete strangers? Wild. And the way they hone in on people who behave and think differently and banish them- it’s giving Lord of the Flies. They’re almost always wrong and honing in on really good players who could actually make the difference in finding actual traitors. The group is strongest when it’s diverse and they instead banish the diversity. When they get rid of Dan in episode 4, he was a great player who was thinking correctly (that they don’t know each other and should be playing somewhat as individuals) and they got rid of him. In season 1 this felt a bit gross because I felt that people who were potentially exhibiting neurodivergent traits were all rounded on and eliminated early- it feels a bit gross sometimes. The other issue with their group think is that they don’t know who the traitors are so they’re talking about their theories with actual traitors because they decided to trust these complete strangers. In season 2, Harry played an absolute blinder by capitalising on all of these things. He was also willing to toss his fellow traitors under the bus when needed- which you need to be willing to do as a traitor. When your fellow traitor catches heat, you need to not stick your neck out defending them. I find this show really frustrating because of how they all play it, because I would not play the game in this hive mind sort of way. But I also acknowledge that if I was playing the game, I’d be banished really early on because I wouldn’t easily slide into the group dynamic.
I've never seen the show, but from what I've heard (and what I know from other similar social deduction games) the Lord of the Flies analogy sounds entirely fitting
Harry survived because he fed into the "herd" and blended well. Trying to think different and get people to see your view is putting a target on your back. It comes off as manipulative which a death sentence.
The issue with the show, and more particularly for the faithfuls is that they don't understand how the odds are stacked against them and that's before any psychology kicks in. The game of werewolf was created to test the hypothesis that an individual with hidden knowledge will outperform an uninformed majority. However, in the traitors game, you start with 3-4 traitors. However, it's actually counter-productive to find the traitors at the start, because they can just recruit again, which actually makes it harder for the faithfuls as they have to go through the whole investigative process all over again, with someone new. If the faithfuls wanted the best opportunity to win, they'd accept that it's actually necessary to vote off faithfuls not for the purpose of finding traitors, but for players who are the least useful for them.
Love this show, I wondered if one season they had two sets of two traitors that don’t know who each other are. Technically they could murder each other. It would be quite the twist!!
as someone who really enjoys social deduction games, watching the traitors has progressively become more and more painful with every series. Everyone seems to forget it's a game as soon as they're in the room. And those who don't forget it's a game get voted off. I know it must be stressful being inside, but some manage to cope, and then are accused of being traitors because they are either not emotional enough or too emotional at the wrong times. You can't help but wonder... have these people even seen the show?!! Three series in, there should be some more interesting tactics and meta-gaming, in my opinion. But I will still watch every episode and be glued to the screen lol. It's a great study in group dynamics.
Unlike Big Brother where you can build alliances and friendships to take to the end, those same alliances on Traitors become targets for murder. So everyone in this game is always left alone by the end.
If playing deception games like Among Us and Mafia has taught me anything, people can easily be blinded by their need to prove their feelings correct and give into their bias than actually following sound logic. If they think you did something annoying or "obviously bad person *behavior* " then that can often trump actual evidence. I think part of that trapping is most people think they're pretty smart, so when they latch onto a *feeling* they look for any reason to justify it because they're smart and it isnt that this small behavior is too obviously an accident, but just you catching them in the act. When I end up as a traitor in games I usually play this as hard as I can and it usually works out for me. "This person did -insert obvious mistake-, not saying they are the traitor, but it's suspicious." Almost always poisons the well against that player even if they dont make a single mistake after. Meanwhile, when I am an innocent player it can be hard to fight against this. Even if I have really solid evidence, it can be hard to pull attention away from someone people already dont like. I have gone to my own game death begging players not to vote out the person who pushed votes to me because they usually arent the bad person. Again, this doesnt end up doing anything most times and people still vote the other guy out.
I realized this game is a version of mafia, instead of wolves its traitors, villagers are faithfuls and faithfuls have the opportunity to be saved via immunity tolen which is similar to the bodyguard role, only that the players can protect themselves.
I’m a big fan of social deduction games and so I view the show from that perspective. Which is silly because, it’s not a game. (Edit: it’s a badly designed game.) There is little to no logic behind who the traitors can be. The tasks do little to make the traitors seem suspicious. If the traitors were encouraged to always sabotage tasks or had mini tasks to do on the side, there would be more engaging gameplay and definite strategy in trying to sus out the traitors. Additionally, like most social deduction games, giving the faithful their own roles that could help and hinder their team would add a lot more to the table in terms of discussion. But as you described, yes, they have little to go off and instead fall to baseless accusations grounded in usually emotion rather than logic. I can’t blame them, there’s nothing else to base accusations on. And it is funny when there are cases where the traitors have to sabotage or do suspicious tasks and yet, most players don’t seem to take mind of the traitors when they do clearly sabotage. Season 2’s traitor challenge where they had to kill by giving the chalice to a player was the most engaging as a game this show has gotten.
The tasks are often the worst bit of the show because they rarely add anything to the dynamics. The gunk one was pretty good, and I do like when they sabotage tasks, but most of them could do with something more
This was my main problem with the first 2 seasons but with this 3rd season seems like the producers are trying to make the tasks and twists have more information to them
Just because there is little to no logic, doesn't mean it's not a game, it's just more social deduction that most games we call "social deduction" even though many of them would be better described as "logical deduction" or at least a blend of social and logic. Rock, paper, scissors is probably the simplest form of social deduction game with no logic at all.
@@BeingTheHunt You make a good point, but I would disagree there's no logic to rock, paper, scissors. What I mean by "it's not a game" is that the idea of socially sussing people out isn't structured or has definite rules. It's just an environment where people use bad faith arguments centred around nothing but biases and often discrimination in attempt to one up each other. It's more akin to a large scale bullying than it is to a game. But I definitely get your point and I think you're right about "social deduction" games being more logical than social. It's just if there's money on the line, there should be gameplay. As you mentioned, 'rock, paper, scissors' has gameplay. Traitors makes you think it does, but it's a reality show first and foremost.
@pastelpaints I think I agree with everything you said except your definition of the word 'game' but that's ok, it's a notoriously difficult word to define. In fact, it was Ludwig Wittgenstein's go-to example for a word describing a set of things that have no single feature in common.
I used to play the game this show is based on a lot when I was a student and even very smart people have trouble thinking strategically. It's really about a mindset of sorts I think.
Season 1 pissed me off because “playing the game” was enough to blame someone and I was so confused because that’s what everyone was doing… but supposedly that was just a traitors trait. And so everyone got so mad at the person who won the season because they… played the game and they played it well
Think the fact there is recruitments during the game means that trust becomes somewhat important. If you have evidence someone has lied to you, I think it’s only natural to want them out the game as you now cannot trust their actions. In addition, part of the game, as much as voting out traitors, is survival. Therefore you need to be able to trust people to an extent to help keep yourself alive. I understand it may still not be completely logical, but we have limited rationality at the best of times. I agree with a large part of what you are saying, definitely think if ur looking from a strategy perspective it needs to reflect human nature as oppose to game logic. Great deal of Traitors is realistically luck as some responses to actions seem random with each different cast. It’s a great watch from a psychological perspective. Definitely interested to see with more seasons (greater sample size) what more specific conclusions can be made about what the best strategy actually is, as I do think rn it is so subject to individual differences. Not to mention you are subject to other people making bad decisions, no matter how well you play
I think with the Dan example too Minah stepped in and drove the attention towards him and away from Linda So sometimes to illogical behaviour is fuelled by traitors
Interesting video - I enjoyed it. You make a great point about how much pressure they're under. I find I forget when watching it, now that I am used to the show and how it works (similar to e.g. forgetting how knackered professional footballers are by the end of the game if they make a mistake). I think one more issue is the Great Traitors Flaw - it makes almost no difference if you banish a faithful or a traitor for the first 75% of the series (as the traitors keep replenishing). So you're incentivised to build a case against *anyone* who's not you. And if others are building a case against someone else then you don't want to draw attention to yourself by deviating. It would be interesting if there were more skin in the game for getting it wrong - that would be more of a test of how much is based on biases etc, rather than self-defence.
1. Faithful’s friendships with each other should feel real. To discover that someone has betrayed you in a way unrelated to the game implies their friendship may not be real, and is put on to seem ‘faithful’ when they are not 2. People who lie / betray those friendships are more likely to backstab and be recruited as traitors / lead campaigns against people they believe to be traitors (whether they are faithful/friends with this person). E.g. Dan, after lying to Frankie, comes across as ‘not friends’ with her, meaning he could turn on her and vote her out of the game. 3. All behaviour is suspicious behaviour. As a traitor, you have to consider every single thing you do or say, meaning you’re more likely to seem ‘off’ (see: Linda crying). People will pick up on the very smallest things people say and do to question if it was a ‘slip up’ or just an us vs them decision by accident. 4. Us vs them means people forget quite easily that the traitors are not an evil entity, but playing a game the same as everyone else. Any amount of ‘antagonistic’ behaviour will cause the faithful team with herd mentality to reject this person and assume they are unfaithful, as those people are the ‘baddies’ and therefore do ‘bad’ things 5. Production interference / what is shown to the audience may differ. We don’t know whether people are forced to say or do things they wouldn’t normally. They may also expect twists, such as there being 6 traitors and they all back each other up for example (this is less likely) 6. There’s too much going on. They have to remember everything everyone says and does and who they vote for. I for one would be too confused to decide, but we’ve seen indecision or having no personality makes you look like a traitor. So maybe people act more extrovertedly / do surprising things to avoid flying under the radar and being voted out. 7. Critical thinking skills. Of course, it all comes down to have people actually thought this all through, or are they just being their authentic selves (which may mean they overlook the obvious or can’t separate reality and the game)
I think the key to being a good traitor in social deduction games is to be in the middle of the pack - a totally innocent looking person is liable to be a target in the night if they are innocent and their continued survival will look more and more suspicious. While looking too guilty will get you voted out (and not killed in the night because you're such a good patsy). You need to balance those two extremes.
I like your analysis and I agree this is probably true for some of the contestants but I think you also have failed to understand how the game show works. The early stages of the game are pointless given that if a traitor is discovered they will just recruit a new one. In addition, the game can only be ended with a minimum of 2 contestants (probably 3 is the maximum). Given this, the best tactic as either a traitor or faithful is to befriend a counterpart (keep your enemies closer and all that) I therefore propose these three musings: 1) Some of the faithful have identified the traitors and are purposefully keeping them in the game to secure their route to the final. 2) In the early game, as a faithful it is more beneficial to eliminate competitors than traitors. 3) Trust is very important because you will eventually have to end the game with at least 1 other person. This is more likely the reason why the contestants that break trust are banished.
Whilst this is all definitely true and sometimes very relevant to events, I think there is a difference between what makes sense strategically, and what players are emotionally and socially compelled to do. Weirdly I discussed this exact point in my next video
I feel like the traitors this season are playing a simple game and not a complex one and yet the faithful cant even back track and figure things out with logic to easily whittle down the potential traitors, but that's just me and my chances of going on here are slim as I can imagine loads of people apply.
15:00 - I think the contestants said in interviews after the first season that each "day" in the show is actually filmed over about 3 days, so the 12 days of the show is actually more like a few weeks. This goes some way to explaining, not just their heightened emotional state, but why (in past seasons) contestants have started a "day" with claimed certainty about a particular individual yet switched to another by the roundtable. I try not to judge the contestants too much as it's evidently a stressful experience, and it shouldn't take too much empathy to imagine being in that social dynamic as a constant for even a few days. That said, I did find Season 2 frustrating with how obvious Paul and Harry were. 😅 Linda has nothing on the luck of those two. I want to semi-contest your point towards the end that the more likely Traitors are the most trustworthy. I agree with your point regarding the inverse-that dishonesty means nothing if a Traitor would have nothing to gain from it-but 'you are really nice and thus would make a good Traitor' seems to be one of those designated catchphrases that each season gets. The majority of suspicion on Kas seemed to come from that, rather than their speech. 21:00 - Please do make that video because Linda, for me, has solidified my belief that I would not do well on 'The Traitors'. They would not have got this far if not for their age combined with their gender. Lots of people have had a good idea that Linda is a Traitor, but everybody is reluctant to send home a sweet, older woman. It will happen at some point. As the herd thins and the younger members of the group become tighter, they will inevitably accept that it is time to consider that evidence against Linda. And, in fact, even if Linda hadn't messed up, I suspect the question would have arisen later in the game around the fact that they hadn't yet been murdered. - I'm not sure there's any way for an older woman to win this game (having only seen the British version) as the sympathy that accompanies them makes them hard to banish and thus an obvious choice for murder... but if the Faithfuls were to cotton on to that fact, they might start to suspect any surviving older woman of being a Traitor as why else would they have not been murdered. But I digress, it seems to me that, to do well in 'The Traitors', you need to be quiet (enough to fly under the radar), but not too quiet (as to seem like a spectator), young (enough to make fast bonds with the other young people), and naturally charismatic and likeable in group settings.
I watched UKS1 a while back, but from what I recall Amanda was killing it until her fellow traitor threw her under the bus. I might be wrong. On the point about sympathy making it harder to win as a Faithful - well, the blunt truth is that it’s nearly impossible to win as a faithful if you play as a traitor hunter. What makes the Traitors interesting to me is that the actual gameplay is not what it presents itself as - this is not a game where you sus out liars and win for your team. It’s been brought up in past discussions - but one of the best moves you can make as a faithful if you find a traitor is stay close to them, proclaim their innocence - because if you vote them out early, you’ll just get another. That all being said, the points you brought up are less likely to be seen in the US version, which is interesting. We’ve started to see more alliances where no-one cares if theres a traitor, but voting together to have any shot of getting to the end.
@@sprucecat That is more or less what happened with Amanda, yes. They did make a mistake (not as large as all of those in S2 or Linda in S3), but their fellow traitor was the one to call it out and seed suspicion in everyone else which very quickly snowballed into their banishment. I am assume you're responding to my point about older women making it far though, and that's a fair point. I have a small sample size, having only seen the first 2 and a half seasons of the UK version. I agree with everything you said in that second paragraph too. Although, I think my interest in the series will decline as it becomes more and more obvious that people are staying quiet and not Traitor-hunting in order to survive longer. It makes sense as a game plan, but it's less entertaining and they're not the contestants I'm rooting for. I'm not sure if I'll get to the foreign editions of the show or not. We'll see.
@@mylittlethoughttree I don't recall where particular interviews. I know Claudia interviewed the final five on the radio for Series 1, and maybe 2. And others have just appeared here and there. Aaron from Series 1 has a RUclips channel, and has talked a fair bit about how things are done more casually through reactions to Series 2, and maybe Q&As.
So a couple of thoughts, i think you should put the show in the header personally as i almost put this on my watch later but decided to stay and watch as a viewer am glad i did but you can get more viewers especially with their being a us season too which is worth a look currently there is a us, uk, nz au, canada and those are the ones I have seen with honestly nz and aus being some of my favorite especially new Zealand season 2 So now onto my main point which is a more an offer of acceptance as to how linda has survived which is that gamewise there is actually no incentive to voting out traitors especially when you know who they are.... This comes into full force in US season two where several players admit that they know that one of the traitors is and by knowing it its akmost protection as outing traitors will allow them to recruit which is dangerous
Yeah I agree with that. Jake was smart in episode 1 to make his feelings about her clear but also never push it too hard, and it's the main reason he's not been murdered
It was so great to watch Sandra play in US s2. She understood the true goal of the game is to survive to the end and that means banishing anyone who isn’t a benefit to your game. Most of her group of allies suspected Parvati at that point of being a traitor, but it didn’t matter because they needed the numbers. The only reason she didn’t win is because she’s Sandra Diaz Twine. Her reputation precedes her and there was no way the others would let her get to the end even tho she WAS a faithful. They just wouldn’t risk it.
Hmmm no Barry's eyes blinked and his pupils changed size by 0.000002mm so he is 100% a traitor no questions asked if you disagree or mention my name you are also also definitely a traitor
Just a weird observation i had. I'd say that you also have some bias in this analysis. I'd say that raising your glass to toast to someone who's murdered isn't inherently more weird than breaking down in crying. I think if it was obvious that the crying was fake sh'e'd been kicked out right away, but in the situation it most have seemed convincing. But you judge the two as being different because you know the traitor and thus put different meaning into those actions.
You make a good case! However there are differences in my opinion. One person is raising a polite toast on the second day. It's strange but also more a courtesy to someone he barely got to know. Linda is needing consoling over someone she wasn't close to, when people she was much closer to have gone in previous weeks. Kasim's act is also strange but not inherently dishonest. Kasim was also hounded out off the show, where Linda continues to hang in. I personally got the impression a lot of people didn't believe Linda's crying because there were various comments about it, but it is also difficult to be entirely sure
As someone who's watched the show believe me her crying was NOT convincing. Nobody believed it, they all found it sus and even though she'd lost a lot of the initial Sus from the first day or two, she immediately put a target on her back again. She didn't even fake the tears AND nobody saw her and liv as close enough for her to cry over her especially since she's appeared emotionally stable the entire time. She would have been better off without it, the faithful were so busy nattering about and suspecting their own they would have ignored her for AGES. And she did very nearly get voted for it, just that after the challenge of the day they faithful had something new and shiny to pin sus unto. Recency bias hard at work.
@@mylittlethoughttreei felt so bad for Kaz, the level of BS fanfiction that was being made about him was insane. 'Doctor by day murderer by night don't ya think?'. What the bloody heck?! 😂 You can't have shit in this game without them using it against you. Look at the sisters! ....ok they were right about that, but they were never gonna let that go whether they were traitors or not. It's also hilarious that of all the things she'd done to be sussed as a traitor, the sister thing was likely the thing that finally got her pushed out (that and her own sister throwing her under the bus)
@@mylittlethoughttree If you want to put yourself to the test watch The Mole, which is very similar except in one key aspect, we the audience don't know who the mole is. Make notes throughout the series of what you think is suspicious behaviour and at the end you can see how good you are at spotting genuine suspicious behaviour.
@@libertyadams5961 Very true, but I think this is where something I've seen discussed lately, that players are playing the producers, comes in. You can see it with the whole early theory in UK S3 that there must be women traitors this time after so many men in S2, and now they seem to have swung back the other way thinking that 'well there must be some male traitors this season' as so far they've all caught women. I think the whole Jaz being a doctor thing isn't someone saying that because he is a doctor he is inherently suspicious and must be a traitor, I think it's them saying the producers would love the storyline of a Doctor being the Traitor, which I can see. Still totally wrong of course. I knew as soon as I saw there were sisters there that one would have to be a traitor, because it's a great storyline.
It’s kinda nice tho that The Traitors inadvertently shows that humans are not inherently inclined to lie. That we are social beings and we can care about people we’ve only known for a few days.
I've never heard of this show before! Gods, these sorts of social situations drive me absolutely BONKERS. I get so frustrated, angry and anxious and I want to cry 😂
Don't overlook the influence of production, both in who they cast and how they influence them after. I'm yet to see anyone try to place any traps to gain evidence, and any faithful who makes it to the end is generally one that was easily influenced
I read a book about group thinking and diversity and one of the big points it said was that people prefer to be in groups of people they are friends or people that are most similar to them as they get along easily but the end result of whatever is poor. The opposite is true where a cognitively diverse group leads to more friction/conflict/discussions and is the less enjoyable group to begin with but the end result is significantly better. This is interesting when applying it to this game as people who think differently are either murdered or banished early on. Hence why a lot of the smart people have gone already.
There's a whole genre of boardgames/party games in this vein call social deduction games. And let me tell you it gets stressful even when you're not playing for money.
You make great points, however good gameplay doesn't require a traitor to get banished till the end. It's actually better gameplay to remove faithfuls the majority of the game as recruited traitors are harder to find. I wonder if players seemingly going for irrational targets are in fact just playing the game. I doubt it, but it's still better gameplay.
I was surprised at Tyler's banishment, I think it's actually a decent example of players using logic to try and find a Traitor. Unfortunately they got it all wrong. I think for this Series to be interesting I think Minah needs to backstab Linda and recruit someone else
They *have* to give a reason for their nominations, whether they have one or not. It would be a very dull show indeed if they simply said "I'm nominating [X] - I've got no reason why but the rules say I have to". I'd say the biggest pressure they're all under is making sure they're living up to the producers' expectations. Aplying any more analysis than that to their behaviours is specious.
This game was invented by a sociologist to literally show what happens to people when they are asked to make decisions in the absence of evidence. It's fun but I never really judge any of the players for their stupidity, I do sometimes judge them on their surety.
I think the great success of this show is that they have convinced us that it is real. It doesn't have to be fake, so it might as well be real and have authentic actions and reactions. But there are tell-tale signs that at the very least some scenes are re-shot after the event. It's also too fragile to be real. It could be ruined by any of the traitors, advertently or inadvertently. Faithfuls could possibly solve who all the traitors are and tell the group. The producers would then have to find a way of thwarting that in an artificial way. That would ruin the show. That's why I think it's fragile. If they are having to re-shoot some of the scenes, why not just write the whole script? Maybe I'm wrong, but just look at the reaction of the woman who won $250k on Australia Traitors season 1. She celebrated like she'd won $250. Then again, maybe $250k is nothing to her.
1) I thought that in the first 6 episodes, they did really well to make the missions relevant. They really did throw in a few spanners. Less so in episodes 7-9 which I felt disappointing in comparison. 2) When the Faithful understand the game, the game gets dull. I felt that the recent Canadian series had Faithful that understood the game was to keep in it until the end and they didn't bother to hunt traitors, recognising that if they did that, there would just be new traitors added who would be harder to spot. It really meant for what was to me the worst Traitors series.
What people need to remember is this season has a bit of a female dominance to it, (3 women OG traitors, a few feminine/gay guys). With this group dynamic, it’s not unreasonable to expect the general trend of voting to be skewed towards emotional choice with logic taking a back seat. This theory assumes all women vote emotionally and all men vote logically which is obviously not the case, (when there is probably more of an overlapping spectrum). However exceptions do not disprove the rule and in fact i don’t think the round table events of E1-6 are really that surprising.
I think it twofold. Minah rounded on him because she didn't like the gunk in her hair -she can hardly be righteous about lying as she's a traitor! Secondly Minah cleverly put the heat on him because she was protecting Linda. I think Minah knows Linda is playing a poor game, so is carefully pulling the strings. That brings me onto to another point. Being a traitor is all about being a great puppet master! Look at Harry last year. He recruited Mollie as his Lieutenant and did take her all the way to the end -unfortunately she couldn't see through his facade. Good analysis. I agree with others - you should have a title that includes Traitors, and have a more clickbaity thumbnail.
@@mylittlethoughttreeHe was my favourite too, he also did tell the cameras that he thought about it a little bit differently, he was autistic too and his gameplay (his friends outside of the game said) was similar to how he is in real life
Use the code TREE for 51% off World Anvil with the link worldanvil.com/?c=mltt
Or else try it out for free!!
Patreon link: www.patreon.com/mylittlethoughttree
Buymeacoffee link: www.buymeacoffee.com/mltt
Second channel: www.youtube.com/@ThoughtlessTree
Dave's Walks video: ruclips.net/video/5-Cfa81kMr4/видео.htmlsi=b11ltXlvAPVM4Qtx
Id love if they made an edit where the audience doesnt know who the traitors are either and see how good a general audience is at figuring it out
there is already a show like that. It’s called The Mole. Was hosted by Anderson Cooper in the USA early 2000’s. You might be able to find the season online
@@wintersun398 that show (as well as this one I think) is based on a Dutch one that has been running for ages now but it's in Dutch ofcourse. Wie is de Mol (first might have started in Belgium)
@@wintersun398there was a more recent one, I think I watched one on netflix about 4 years ago? I think they were renewing for season 2 but idk if it ever happened
Yes season 2 of the netflix mole came out last year. It was great, would highly recommend that show
@ Does it follow the same format as the original The Mole? As in the identity of the mole is kept a secret until the finale?
It’s funny how in this series they keep thinking the suspected traitors are playing the double bluff. And then the actual traitors never play the double bluff
Exactly, Ash and Paul did that last season and it didn't go well.
One of the things that I find interesting is this idea of the traitors that develops as the show goes on.
At the beginning, many players tell Claudia they would consider being a traitor. But quite quickly the faithful - including the ones who said they'd happily play as traitors - start to imagine that the traitors are fundamentally different from the faithful.
The traitors must feel this way, or that way. The traitors are mocking and cruel and cunning. The traitors are laughing at us.
And all the while I'm here thinking "you told Claudia straight to her face that you'd make a good traitor".
I love Traitors, so I’m not complaining here - but yes, exactly, this is what drives me mad about the players. It never seems to occur to them that not everything means someone is a traitor. Being a GP doesn’t make you a traitor. The fact you might commit a crime for £1million (Meryl) doesn’t make you a traitor. Wanting to win the game doesn’t make you a traitor.
The only thing that makes you a traitor is being chosen to be one. You need evidence of people actually doing something to benefit the traitors - not just evidence that they are playing the game. Because everyone is playing the game.
I think the GP thing is the faithful trying to get into the mindset of the producers and what would make good television. For example when the two sisters first came on screen I immediately called that one of them would be a traitor.
This sounds like something a traitor would say, and you would make a great one... 🤔
yes bt even sometimes u can slip up and still be a faithful for example Dan
The problem with this game is that if a faithful is pretty sure they know at least one traitor, the best thing for them to do is keep them in the game and vote out faithfuls to the end. The opportunity to recruit more traitors completely disincentivises the faithful to vote out someone they believe is a traitor as they have to start looking for new traitors all over again. There should be no recruitment at all in my opinion.
@ I get your point, and when I played an ORG of Traitors that was exactly what the faithful did. But there *has* to be recruitment otherwise the show can’t work. If all the Traitors got voted out by episode 3, the series would end and that can’t happen. Traitors is a game but more than that it’s a TV show so it needs to function as a TV show.
I'd like to put forward a theory I've had for some time. There is little incentive to vote out traitors in the early stages of the game as they will simply recruit more, instead it may be more advantageous to vote out who you think your biggest competitors will be should you get to the latter stages regardless of their traitor/faithful status. Therefore contestants may be voting out competitors as soon as a decent opportunity arises regardless of if they truly believe them to be a traitor or not. In Linda's case they may believe that she's a traitor but not see her as much of a competitor so they are deliberately keeping her in the game.
Which exactly is what Dan was doing for me. He was targeting all the popular people in that group, not just traitors.
I don't see this talked about enough. The narrative of the show is traitors against faithful, but if you take those emotion inducing words away and look at the actual game the faithful are not a team; at least not until the very end. Getting rid of traitors before the endgame actually makes things harder for the faithful as it is impossible to get rid of them all and by banishing a traitor you invite a new traitor to be recruited, so now there's a traitor you have no evidence against.
Ironically, Dan knew that the game is not a team game, acting selfishly throughout, but didn't realise that by playing that way openly he was making himself a target.
Yes but most players arent smart enough to see it that way. Most faithfuls like Dan who figure that out and try to do it are seen as bad faithfuls which makes them look like traitors instead
Logically and strategically, there's no incentive...well, there are some, but emotionally there is a tonne of incentive to vote out traitors
You certainly touched on it, but something the contestants never seem to actually listen to is motivation. Dan states his logic is to gunk the person who will suspect him least so he can stay in the mini game and EARN A SHIELD. A huge motivator for a faithful who may be up for murder.
But no he’s ’suspicious’ because he acted in self-interest. 😒
A good point but I think too many of the players are now in too deep in the lore to let Dan slide there. Traitors in past seasons have acted like a faithful in trying their absolute darndest to get a shield, but that's because they want to look like a faithful. Same could be said of Dan in this situation, we in the audience however, have the benefit of knowing his motives were good.
There’s a consistent “othering” that happens every season, and I think season 3 REALLY demonstrates it. If it’s a behaviour/action/phrasing that contestant doesn’t normally do, then it’s immediate suspicion, rather than, logically, the person just being their own individual self.
I completely agree. I am normally rooting for the faithful but I am team traitor all the way this series.
17:25 I genuinely think she was so upset because black hair works a lot differently to European hair. If she's chemically straightened it she might be fine (even then her hair might be somewhat fragile) but if she's straightened it with heat or something her hair is quite frankly, effed. She's can't just 'wash it out' it'll immediately shrivel/shrink up and risk more heat damage by having to hot comb it again in such a short time, and regrease or gel it. Honestly watching it myself, I could imagine her terror before that challenge even began. Weather and humidity is already a huge thing in ruining lots of black hairstyles, having literal gunk eff up the entire thing is a nightmare. Also would have been rough if her hair was natural and she had to get it out of her curls. Dan prob had no awareness of this.
I'm black myself and I would say she's fully responsible. Anybody's who watched the game knows there's water and other elements involved that may affect your hair. She should've done braids like if she were going on vacation and also carried a swim cap or something.
Can't remember who but I remember seeing a contestant only have the gunk poured on their back/robe, made me wonder if they could have done the same to Minah because she openly complained about getting it in her hair beforehand
Thought the same. The way so many people didn’t realise this has to be pure ignorance because it’s so obvious that its more complex than the white girls getting their hair gunged if you just stop and think for half a second
I think one of the masked men were only pouring the goop on people's backs, and another was pouring it in hair.
I think that was pretty f'd up for production to even include this element in the game. It seemed just poorly executed and mean.
Personally, they could have just had blind votes without needing to "mark" anyone. Will be curious to compare this to the US version of the challenge and see if they keep this part in.
@@MattJarjoura Agree, I'm a white man and the first thing I thought on seeing Minah be gunked was, 'oh no, you don't do that to a black woman's hair.' Given not everyone had it in their hair I really couldn't believe there was nobody in production who could think of this. Maybe they wanted her really riled up for the game, did provide a great fall out.
I REALLY hate how the south asian male players get treated in Traitors. They are often very smart and play the game well, but they all constantly get voted out of the game because of their personality or smarts. And it's always not based on how they are playing. Kaz deserved better and a fair chance to play. Also this season everyone keeps voting people out who they know isn't a traitor just to save themselves from elimination.
So true, Jaz last year and this year its Kaz
@@lookiams Jaz made it to the end!
i've only watched season 2 and 3, but when you say "the south asian male players" are you literally just talking about Kaz...? Cus Jaz made it all the way to the final 3 lol
@@onetwo8847 I'm talking about Kaz (S3) & Imran, Rayan (S1) from what I remember. I know Jaz made it to the end, but he literally wasn't trusted for most of the game by anyone and was only kept because if he got murdered it would help the faithful know who the traitor is because he was intelligent and onto most of them. So Jaz still counts since he also didn't get to play fairly due to being excluded from the group. Plus he like Kaz was the only South Asian male on their season, it just comes off as a way to easily be excluded due to prejudiced notions. Faozia also faced this and is a south asian woman.
@@onetwo8847 making it is not the same as being treated fairly
The Traitors is an excellent study in group dynamics and human behaviour.
The way that everyone feels the need to group up and form relationships: they call each other friends after 2-3 days, which is wild to me! They’re strangers! The way they do this and place all of their trust in these complete strangers? Wild.
And the way they hone in on people who behave and think differently and banish them- it’s giving Lord of the Flies. They’re almost always wrong and honing in on really good players who could actually make the difference in finding actual traitors. The group is strongest when it’s diverse and they instead banish the diversity. When they get rid of Dan in episode 4, he was a great player who was thinking correctly (that they don’t know each other and should be playing somewhat as individuals) and they got rid of him. In season 1 this felt a bit gross because I felt that people who were potentially exhibiting neurodivergent traits were all rounded on and eliminated early- it feels a bit gross sometimes.
The other issue with their group think is that they don’t know who the traitors are so they’re talking about their theories with actual traitors because they decided to trust these complete strangers.
In season 2, Harry played an absolute blinder by capitalising on all of these things. He was also willing to toss his fellow traitors under the bus when needed- which you need to be willing to do as a traitor. When your fellow traitor catches heat, you need to not stick your neck out defending them.
I find this show really frustrating because of how they all play it, because I would not play the game in this hive mind sort of way. But I also acknowledge that if I was playing the game, I’d be banished really early on because I wouldn’t easily slide into the group dynamic.
I've never seen the show, but from what I've heard (and what I know from other similar social deduction games) the Lord of the Flies analogy sounds entirely fitting
Well put, if I was ever to make a video on biases in the show, you've pretty much summarised it for me already 😆
Dan was banished in episode 6?
@@benmccarthy1799yes 😔
Harry survived because he fed into the "herd" and blended well. Trying to think different and get people to see your view is putting a target on your back. It comes off as manipulative which a death sentence.
Whoever came up with this show is a true genius. I don't know anyone that hasnt fallen in love with the show from the bat.
The only thing I wished is that they show more casual conversations between the contestants.
The issue with the show, and more particularly for the faithfuls is that they don't understand how the odds are stacked against them and that's before any psychology kicks in. The game of werewolf was created to test the hypothesis that an individual with hidden knowledge will outperform an uninformed majority. However, in the traitors game, you start with 3-4 traitors. However, it's actually counter-productive to find the traitors at the start, because they can just recruit again, which actually makes it harder for the faithfuls as they have to go through the whole investigative process all over again, with someone new. If the faithfuls wanted the best opportunity to win, they'd accept that it's actually necessary to vote off faithfuls not for the purpose of finding traitors, but for players who are the least useful for them.
Love this show, I wondered if one season they had two sets of two traitors that don’t know who each other are. Technically they could murder each other. It would be quite the twist!!
as someone who really enjoys social deduction games, watching the traitors has progressively become more and more painful with every series. Everyone seems to forget it's a game as soon as they're in the room. And those who don't forget it's a game get voted off. I know it must be stressful being inside, but some manage to cope, and then are accused of being traitors because they are either not emotional enough or too emotional at the wrong times. You can't help but wonder... have these people even seen the show?!! Three series in, there should be some more interesting tactics and meta-gaming, in my opinion. But I will still watch every episode and be glued to the screen lol. It's a great study in group dynamics.
Unlike Big Brother where you can build alliances and friendships to take to the end, those same alliances on Traitors become targets for murder. So everyone in this game is always left alone by the end.
If playing deception games like Among Us and Mafia has taught me anything, people can easily be blinded by their need to prove their feelings correct and give into their bias than actually following sound logic. If they think you did something annoying or "obviously bad person *behavior* " then that can often trump actual evidence. I think part of that trapping is most people think they're pretty smart, so when they latch onto a *feeling* they look for any reason to justify it because they're smart and it isnt that this small behavior is too obviously an accident, but just you catching them in the act.
When I end up as a traitor in games I usually play this as hard as I can and it usually works out for me. "This person did -insert obvious mistake-, not saying they are the traitor, but it's suspicious." Almost always poisons the well against that player even if they dont make a single mistake after. Meanwhile, when I am an innocent player it can be hard to fight against this. Even if I have really solid evidence, it can be hard to pull attention away from someone people already dont like. I have gone to my own game death begging players not to vote out the person who pushed votes to me because they usually arent the bad person. Again, this doesnt end up doing anything most times and people still vote the other guy out.
I realized this game is a version of mafia, instead of wolves its traitors, villagers are faithfuls and faithfuls have the opportunity to be saved via immunity tolen which is similar to the bodyguard role, only that the players can protect themselves.
I’m a big fan of social deduction games and so I view the show from that perspective. Which is silly because, it’s not a game. (Edit: it’s a badly designed game.) There is little to no logic behind who the traitors can be. The tasks do little to make the traitors seem suspicious. If the traitors were encouraged to always sabotage tasks or had mini tasks to do on the side, there would be more engaging gameplay and definite strategy in trying to sus out the traitors. Additionally, like most social deduction games, giving the faithful their own roles that could help and hinder their team would add a lot more to the table in terms of discussion.
But as you described, yes, they have little to go off and instead fall to baseless accusations grounded in usually emotion rather than logic. I can’t blame them, there’s nothing else to base accusations on.
And it is funny when there are cases where the traitors have to sabotage or do suspicious tasks and yet, most players don’t seem to take mind of the traitors when they do clearly sabotage. Season 2’s traitor challenge where they had to kill by giving the chalice to a player was the most engaging as a game this show has gotten.
The tasks are often the worst bit of the show because they rarely add anything to the dynamics. The gunk one was pretty good, and I do like when they sabotage tasks, but most of them could do with something more
This was my main problem with the first 2 seasons but with this 3rd season seems like the producers are trying to make the tasks and twists have more information to them
Just because there is little to no logic, doesn't mean it's not a game, it's just more social deduction that most games we call "social deduction" even though many of them would be better described as "logical deduction" or at least a blend of social and logic. Rock, paper, scissors is probably the simplest form of social deduction game with no logic at all.
@@BeingTheHunt You make a good point, but I would disagree there's no logic to rock, paper, scissors. What I mean by "it's not a game" is that the idea of socially sussing people out isn't structured or has definite rules. It's just an environment where people use bad faith arguments centred around nothing but biases and often discrimination in attempt to one up each other. It's more akin to a large scale bullying than it is to a game.
But I definitely get your point and I think you're right about "social deduction" games being more logical than social. It's just if there's money on the line, there should be gameplay. As you mentioned, 'rock, paper, scissors' has gameplay. Traitors makes you think it does, but it's a reality show first and foremost.
@pastelpaints I think I agree with everything you said except your definition of the word 'game' but that's ok, it's a notoriously difficult word to define. In fact, it was Ludwig Wittgenstein's go-to example for a word describing a set of things that have no single feature in common.
I used to play the game this show is based on a lot when I was a student and even very smart people have trouble thinking strategically. It's really about a mindset of sorts I think.
Also requires adaptability and spontaneity, which can be very different kinds of intelligence
Season 1 pissed me off because “playing the game” was enough to blame someone and I was so confused because that’s what everyone was doing… but supposedly that was just a traitors trait. And so everyone got so mad at the person who won the season because they… played the game and they played it well
faithfuls won season 1
@ayyteal6034Without getting into spoilers, they’re referring to US S1
@@sprucecat ohhh makes sense👍
Think the fact there is recruitments during the game means that trust becomes somewhat important. If you have evidence someone has lied to you, I think it’s only natural to want them out the game as you now cannot trust their actions. In addition, part of the game, as much as voting out traitors, is survival. Therefore you need to be able to trust people to an extent to help keep yourself alive. I understand it may still not be completely logical, but we have limited rationality at the best of times.
I agree with a large part of what you are saying, definitely think if ur looking from a strategy perspective it needs to reflect human nature as oppose to game logic. Great deal of Traitors is realistically luck as some responses to actions seem random with each different cast. It’s a great watch from a psychological perspective. Definitely interested to see with more seasons (greater sample size) what more specific conclusions can be made about what the best strategy actually is, as I do think rn it is so subject to individual differences. Not to mention you are subject to other people making bad decisions, no matter how well you play
love the general video idea, another good one would be analysing like how this seasons winner(s) won after it ends.
I think with the Dan example too Minah stepped in and drove the attention towards him and away from Linda
So sometimes to illogical behaviour is fuelled by traitors
Interesting video - I enjoyed it. You make a great point about how much pressure they're under. I find I forget when watching it, now that I am used to the show and how it works (similar to e.g. forgetting how knackered professional footballers are by the end of the game if they make a mistake).
I think one more issue is the Great Traitors Flaw - it makes almost no difference if you banish a faithful or a traitor for the first 75% of the series (as the traitors keep replenishing). So you're incentivised to build a case against *anyone* who's not you. And if others are building a case against someone else then you don't want to draw attention to yourself by deviating. It would be interesting if there were more skin in the game for getting it wrong - that would be more of a test of how much is based on biases etc, rather than self-defence.
1. Faithful’s friendships with each other should feel real. To discover that someone has betrayed you in a way unrelated to the game implies their friendship may not be real, and is put on to seem ‘faithful’ when they are not
2. People who lie / betray those friendships are more likely to backstab and be recruited as traitors / lead campaigns against people they believe to be traitors (whether they are faithful/friends with this person). E.g. Dan, after lying to Frankie, comes across as ‘not friends’ with her, meaning he could turn on her and vote her out of the game.
3. All behaviour is suspicious behaviour. As a traitor, you have to consider every single thing you do or say, meaning you’re more likely to seem ‘off’ (see: Linda crying). People will pick up on the very smallest things people say and do to question if it was a ‘slip up’ or just an us vs them decision by accident.
4. Us vs them means people forget quite easily that the traitors are not an evil entity, but playing a game the same as everyone else. Any amount of ‘antagonistic’ behaviour will cause the faithful team with herd mentality to reject this person and assume they are unfaithful, as those people are the ‘baddies’ and therefore do ‘bad’ things
5. Production interference / what is shown to the audience may differ. We don’t know whether people are forced to say or do things they wouldn’t normally. They may also expect twists, such as there being 6 traitors and they all back each other up for example (this is less likely)
6. There’s too much going on. They have to remember everything everyone says and does and who they vote for. I for one would be too confused to decide, but we’ve seen indecision or having no personality makes you look like a traitor. So maybe people act more extrovertedly / do surprising things to avoid flying under the radar and being voted out.
7. Critical thinking skills. Of course, it all comes down to have people actually thought this all through, or are they just being their authentic selves (which may mean they overlook the obvious or can’t separate reality and the game)
I know this isn’t the Dave’s Walk video, but I looked down and I recognized that bridge. So beautiful. It’s been 8 years but I was once there.
I think the key to being a good traitor in social deduction games is to be in the middle of the pack - a totally innocent looking person is liable to be a target in the night if they are innocent and their continued survival will look more and more suspicious. While looking too guilty will get you voted out (and not killed in the night because you're such a good patsy). You need to balance those two extremes.
I like your analysis and I agree this is probably true for some of the contestants but I think you also have failed to understand how the game show works.
The early stages of the game are pointless given that if a traitor is discovered they will just recruit a new one.
In addition, the game can only be ended with a minimum of 2 contestants (probably 3 is the maximum).
Given this, the best tactic as either a traitor or faithful is to befriend a counterpart (keep your enemies closer and all that)
I therefore propose these three musings:
1) Some of the faithful have identified the traitors and are purposefully keeping them in the game to secure their route to the final.
2) In the early game, as a faithful it is more beneficial to eliminate competitors than traitors.
3) Trust is very important because you will eventually have to end the game with at least 1 other person. This is more likely the reason why the contestants that break trust are banished.
Whilst this is all definitely true and sometimes very relevant to events, I think there is a difference between what makes sense strategically, and what players are emotionally and socially compelled to do. Weirdly I discussed this exact point in my next video
I feel like the traitors this season are playing a simple game and not a complex one and yet the faithful cant even back track and figure things out with logic to easily whittle down the potential traitors, but that's just me and my chances of going on here are slim as I can imagine loads of people apply.
15:00 - I think the contestants said in interviews after the first season that each "day" in the show is actually filmed over about 3 days, so the 12 days of the show is actually more like a few weeks. This goes some way to explaining, not just their heightened emotional state, but why (in past seasons) contestants have started a "day" with claimed certainty about a particular individual yet switched to another by the roundtable. I try not to judge the contestants too much as it's evidently a stressful experience, and it shouldn't take too much empathy to imagine being in that social dynamic as a constant for even a few days. That said, I did find Season 2 frustrating with how obvious Paul and Harry were. 😅 Linda has nothing on the luck of those two.
I want to semi-contest your point towards the end that the more likely Traitors are the most trustworthy. I agree with your point regarding the inverse-that dishonesty means nothing if a Traitor would have nothing to gain from it-but 'you are really nice and thus would make a good Traitor' seems to be one of those designated catchphrases that each season gets. The majority of suspicion on Kas seemed to come from that, rather than their speech.
21:00 - Please do make that video because Linda, for me, has solidified my belief that I would not do well on 'The Traitors'. They would not have got this far if not for their age combined with their gender. Lots of people have had a good idea that Linda is a Traitor, but everybody is reluctant to send home a sweet, older woman. It will happen at some point. As the herd thins and the younger members of the group become tighter, they will inevitably accept that it is time to consider that evidence against Linda. And, in fact, even if Linda hadn't messed up, I suspect the question would have arisen later in the game around the fact that they hadn't yet been murdered. - I'm not sure there's any way for an older woman to win this game (having only seen the British version) as the sympathy that accompanies them makes them hard to banish and thus an obvious choice for murder... but if the Faithfuls were to cotton on to that fact, they might start to suspect any surviving older woman of being a Traitor as why else would they have not been murdered. But I digress, it seems to me that, to do well in 'The Traitors', you need to be quiet (enough to fly under the radar), but not too quiet (as to seem like a spectator), young (enough to make fast bonds with the other young people), and naturally charismatic and likeable in group settings.
I watched UKS1 a while back, but from what I recall Amanda was killing it until her fellow traitor threw her under the bus. I might be wrong.
On the point about sympathy making it harder to win as a Faithful - well, the blunt truth is that it’s nearly impossible to win as a faithful if you play as a traitor hunter. What makes the Traitors interesting to me is that the actual gameplay is not what it presents itself as - this is not a game where you sus out liars and win for your team. It’s been brought up in past discussions - but one of the best moves you can make as a faithful if you find a traitor is stay close to them, proclaim their innocence - because if you vote them out early, you’ll just get another.
That all being said, the points you brought up are less likely to be seen in the US version, which is interesting. We’ve started to see more alliances where no-one cares if theres a traitor, but voting together to have any shot of getting to the end.
@@sprucecat That is more or less what happened with Amanda, yes. They did make a mistake (not as large as all of those in S2 or Linda in S3), but their fellow traitor was the one to call it out and seed suspicion in everyone else which very quickly snowballed into their banishment.
I am assume you're responding to my point about older women making it far though, and that's a fair point. I have a small sample size, having only seen the first 2 and a half seasons of the UK version.
I agree with everything you said in that second paragraph too. Although, I think my interest in the series will decline as it becomes more and more obvious that people are staying quiet and not Traitor-hunting in order to survive longer. It makes sense as a game plan, but it's less entertaining and they're not the contestants I'm rooting for.
I'm not sure if I'll get to the foreign editions of the show or not. We'll see.
That's really interesting, any idea where I can find these interviews?
@@mylittlethoughttree I don't recall where particular interviews. I know Claudia interviewed the final five on the radio for Series 1, and maybe 2. And others have just appeared here and there.
Aaron from Series 1 has a RUclips channel, and has talked a fair bit about how things are done more casually through reactions to Series 2, and maybe Q&As.
WATCH THE US VERSION!! Legendary older woman in s1
I LOVE TRAITORS SO MUCH ITS LIKE THE BEST SHOW THANKS FOR POSTING THIS! ❤
So a couple of thoughts, i think you should put the show in the header personally as i almost put this on my watch later but decided to stay and watch as a viewer am glad i did but you can get more viewers especially with their being a us season too which is worth a look currently there is a us, uk, nz au, canada and those are the ones I have seen with honestly nz and aus being some of my favorite especially new Zealand season 2
So now onto my main point which is a more an offer of acceptance as to how linda has survived which is that gamewise there is actually no incentive to voting out traitors especially when you know who they are....
This comes into full force in US season two where several players admit that they know that one of the traitors is and by knowing it its akmost protection as outing traitors will allow them to recruit which is dangerous
Yeah I agree with that. Jake was smart in episode 1 to make his feelings about her clear but also never push it too hard, and it's the main reason he's not been murdered
It was so great to watch Sandra play in US s2. She understood the true goal of the game is to survive to the end and that means banishing anyone who isn’t a benefit to your game. Most of her group of allies suspected Parvati at that point of being a traitor, but it didn’t matter because they needed the numbers. The only reason she didn’t win is because she’s Sandra Diaz Twine. Her reputation precedes her and there was no way the others would let her get to the end even tho she WAS a faithful. They just wouldn’t risk it.
Geoff made me a cup of tea that wasn't very nice and that's why I think he's a traitor.
😂 wouldn't put it pass some of these lot 😅
Hmmm no Barry's eyes blinked and his pupils changed size by 0.000002mm so he is 100% a traitor no questions asked if you disagree or mention my name you are also also definitely a traitor
Just a weird observation i had. I'd say that you also have some bias in this analysis. I'd say that raising your glass to toast to someone who's murdered isn't inherently more weird than breaking down in crying. I think if it was obvious that the crying was fake sh'e'd been kicked out right away, but in the situation it most have seemed convincing. But you judge the two as being different because you know the traitor and thus put different meaning into those actions.
You make a good case! However there are differences in my opinion. One person is raising a polite toast on the second day. It's strange but also more a courtesy to someone he barely got to know. Linda is needing consoling over someone she wasn't close to, when people she was much closer to have gone in previous weeks. Kasim's act is also strange but not inherently dishonest. Kasim was also hounded out off the show, where Linda continues to hang in. I personally got the impression a lot of people didn't believe Linda's crying because there were various comments about it, but it is also difficult to be entirely sure
As someone who's watched the show believe me her crying was NOT convincing. Nobody believed it, they all found it sus and even though she'd lost a lot of the initial Sus from the first day or two, she immediately put a target on her back again. She didn't even fake the tears AND nobody saw her and liv as close enough for her to cry over her especially since she's appeared emotionally stable the entire time. She would have been better off without it, the faithful were so busy nattering about and suspecting their own they would have ignored her for AGES. And she did very nearly get voted for it, just that after the challenge of the day they faithful had something new and shiny to pin sus unto. Recency bias hard at work.
@@mylittlethoughttreei felt so bad for Kaz, the level of BS fanfiction that was being made about him was insane. 'Doctor by day murderer by night don't ya think?'. What the bloody heck?! 😂 You can't have shit in this game without them using it against you. Look at the sisters! ....ok they were right about that, but they were never gonna let that go whether they were traitors or not. It's also hilarious that of all the things she'd done to be sussed as a traitor, the sister thing was likely the thing that finally got her pushed out (that and her own sister throwing her under the bus)
@@mylittlethoughttree If you want to put yourself to the test watch The Mole, which is very similar except in one key aspect, we the audience don't know who the mole is. Make notes throughout the series of what you think is suspicious behaviour and at the end you can see how good you are at spotting genuine suspicious behaviour.
@@libertyadams5961 Very true, but I think this is where something I've seen discussed lately, that players are playing the producers, comes in. You can see it with the whole early theory in UK S3 that there must be women traitors this time after so many men in S2, and now they seem to have swung back the other way thinking that 'well there must be some male traitors this season' as so far they've all caught women. I think the whole Jaz being a doctor thing isn't someone saying that because he is a doctor he is inherently suspicious and must be a traitor, I think it's them saying the producers would love the storyline of a Doctor being the Traitor, which I can see. Still totally wrong of course. I knew as soon as I saw there were sisters there that one would have to be a traitor, because it's a great storyline.
It’s kinda nice tho that The Traitors inadvertently shows that humans are not inherently inclined to lie. That we are social beings and we can care about people we’ve only known for a few days.
Was Dan or Leanne more dishonest? - Leanne dropped Dan's name in it - which effectively is what caused him to be banished -
I agree totally. They never had to say who dunked them so not sure why everything suddenly did
I've never heard of this show before! Gods, these sorts of social situations drive me absolutely BONKERS. I get so frustrated, angry and anxious and I want to cry 😂
This series has been agonising to watch, they're all fixated on who they like or dislike, and they vote based on emotions rather than evidence.
They were a bit like that last season as well getting rid of good players like Anthony just because he was a bit defensive
It was like that last year as well, but I feel like this year is like that, but 10 times more.
Very good analysis :)
Don't overlook the influence of production, both in who they cast and how they influence them after. I'm yet to see anyone try to place any traps to gain evidence, and any faithful who makes it to the end is generally one that was easily influenced
I read a book about group thinking and diversity and one of the big points it said was that people prefer to be in groups of people they are friends or people that are most similar to them as they get along easily but the end result of whatever is poor. The opposite is true where a cognitively diverse group leads to more friction/conflict/discussions and is the less enjoyable group to begin with but the end result is significantly better. This is interesting when applying it to this game as people who think differently are either murdered or banished early on. Hence why a lot of the smart people have gone already.
Fully agree, weirdly this is exactly what I wanted my next video to be about 😆
Well said
There's a whole genre of boardgames/party games in this vein call social deduction games. And let me tell you it gets stressful even when you're not playing for money.
Its not Nathan, its Ten Hag!
Noooooo!!!😂
You make great points, however good gameplay doesn't require a traitor to get banished till the end. It's actually better gameplay to remove faithfuls the majority of the game as recruited traitors are harder to find.
I wonder if players seemingly going for irrational targets are in fact just playing the game. I doubt it, but it's still better gameplay.
I was surprised at Tyler's banishment, I think it's actually a decent example of players using logic to try and find a Traitor. Unfortunately they got it all wrong.
I think for this Series to be interesting I think Minah needs to backstab Linda and recruit someone else
They *have* to give a reason for their nominations, whether they have one or not. It would be a very dull show indeed if they simply said "I'm nominating [X] - I've got no reason why but the rules say I have to". I'd say the biggest pressure they're all under is making sure they're living up to the producers' expectations.
Aplying any more analysis than that to their behaviours is specious.
This game was invented by a sociologist to literally show what happens to people when they are asked to make decisions in the absence of evidence. It's fun but I never really judge any of the players for their stupidity, I do sometimes judge them on their surety.
I don't get why people got so sus at dan for just doing the task lmao
I think the great success of this show is that they have convinced us that it is real. It doesn't have to be fake, so it might as well be real and have authentic actions and reactions. But there are tell-tale signs that at the very least some scenes are re-shot after the event. It's also too fragile to be real. It could be ruined by any of the traitors, advertently or inadvertently. Faithfuls could possibly solve who all the traitors are and tell the group. The producers would then have to find a way of thwarting that in an artificial way. That would ruin the show. That's why I think it's fragile. If they are having to re-shoot some of the scenes, why not just write the whole script? Maybe I'm wrong, but just look at the reaction of the woman who won $250k on Australia Traitors season 1. She celebrated like she'd won $250. Then again, maybe $250k is nothing to her.
You’ve nailed it in your first line.
It’s so hyped that I had to watch it this season and it’s just so obviously faked or rather produced.
Really enjoyed the video, can you review the season on Thoughtless Tree?
I'd like to. I asked Kirstie just now and she said yes as well
1) I thought that in the first 6 episodes, they did really well to make the missions relevant. They really did throw in a few spanners. Less so in episodes 7-9 which I felt disappointing in comparison.
2) When the Faithful understand the game, the game gets dull. I felt that the recent Canadian series had Faithful that understood the game was to keep in it until the end and they didn't bother to hunt traitors, recognising that if they did that, there would just be new traitors added who would be harder to spot. It really meant for what was to me the worst Traitors series.
Leanne was insufferable. Her breakdown over Leon is still so bizarre.
good video
❤❤
Horrible cast for season 3 in my opinion so far tho..
It's only a matter of time before there's a US version of this game
There already is a US version, currently airing its 3rd season.
@@slimcourage901 I guess that shows how much I pay attention to television anymore
What people need to remember is this season has a bit of a female dominance to it, (3 women OG traitors, a few feminine/gay guys). With this group dynamic, it’s not unreasonable to expect the general trend of voting to be skewed towards emotional choice with logic taking a back seat.
This theory assumes all women vote emotionally and all men vote logically which is obviously not the case, (when there is probably more of an overlapping spectrum). However exceptions do not disprove the rule and in fact i don’t think the round table events of E1-6 are really that surprising.
The truth of the matter is Dan didn’t get kicked out because he was a traitor he got kicked out for being an arrogant prick.
Honestly, he was one of my favourites
I think it twofold. Minah rounded on him because she didn't like the gunk in her hair -she can hardly be righteous about lying as she's a traitor! Secondly Minah cleverly put the heat on him because she was protecting Linda. I think Minah knows Linda is playing a poor game, so is carefully pulling the strings.
That brings me onto to another point. Being a traitor is all about being a great puppet master! Look at Harry last year. He recruited Mollie as his Lieutenant and did take her all the way to the end -unfortunately she couldn't see through his facade.
Good analysis. I agree with others - you should have a title that includes Traitors, and have a more clickbaity thumbnail.
@@mylittlethoughttreeHe was my favourite too, he also did tell the cameras that he thought about it a little bit differently, he was autistic too and his gameplay (his friends outside of the game said) was similar to how he is in real life