On Having Conviction

Original Lecture: On having conviction

The problem with tunneling is in going in thinking about tunneling. There is a good way to tunnel--and that's to not actively be tunneling. :P

I know, that phrase is getting ridiculously overused in these lectures, but to explain on this one--you can show quite a bit of conviction in a read. But it should never be absolute. I have a golden rule in my games. No matter how much it might appear I have violated it, I never, EVER have, and always I keep it in mind. That rule? "Fit the reads to the evidence, not the evidence to the reads." And this is the central part of "tunneling". I can hold a strong belief off of the evidence--but the moment I begin to morph the evidence to fit the read, I've gone too far.

One way I go about this which is surprisingly effective is that I acknowledge alternative viewpoints. I know, it sounds bad. It sounds stupid, like it's counter-productive. Pointing out how the read could be wrong? Surely that's just leaving a door for backtracking! Surely that's just wish-washing! And while this may be true some of the times, when it's done right...it's not. Instead of displaying a lack of confidence in your read, doing so properly will help to emphasize why you feel so strongly ABOUT that read.

I actually have a fairly good recent example of this! In Antihero Reboot mafia, I talked to EspeciallyTheLies. I explained the circumstances behind my scumread on her. That it was possible she was town. But then I laid out in explicit detail precisely why I felt she was scum. It showed that I wasn't confirmation biasing her. I wasn't writing her off as scum without a second thought. I had her as scum because that's what the evidence was telling me. (Granted, I was a mason, so there wouldn't be accusations of me backtracking, but there could have been, on me being wishy-washy. There weren't, though, because I handled it well.)

When done right, you accentuate the strength of your case, rather than degrading it. Now, I can't tell you how to 100% replicate this every time. But I can give a few pointers. When you make a case, you have to make sure you actually believe that's what the evidence says. Don't make up BS about it. And when you make the case, I strongly advise looking it over, thinking for a second, and analyzing it a bit, slightly objectively. Run through things. "Am I emotional about this case?" (You need to step back and reassess; chances are, your case--being emotionally-driven--has morphed the evidence to the read.) "Is this actually possible? Or even probable?" "Is this actually something I believe is a legitimate point?" And so on and so forth. Go through that mental checklist, and then, when finished, go through one more. "What's the other side?"

And believe me! No scum player's bad enough that there won't be another side! Look at it, and run through the reverse. "Am I emotional enough that I can't see it?" "Is it possible or even probable that they could be town?" "Is there anything about them being town that looks like it could be legitimate?" And so on and so forth. After weighing the two, then push forward with your findings. That way, you've analyzed it, and push it. And when you push it, it can be with strength. You're not confirmation biasing them, so it's not true tunneling. But you've gotten good analysis, that you truly believe, and push strongly.

And now we get to how this goes into practice. It's exactly as T-Bone said--the tunnel isn't a true tunnel. It's not impossible for you to change your read. But you're not going to change your read at the drop of the hat. You believe it. Strongly. Because that's what you see. It's something that can change. What you see will change as a game progresses. (For better or for worse.) But it will be something that you believe. You want confidence in your push. But it has to be with good reason. Your confidence can't be arrogance. You want to make sure that you're being reasonable and have a picture fitting the evidence. And not that you've distorted the evidence to fit your own narrative.

Mastering this is, coincidentally enough, a great way to get people to listen to you. If they think your pushes are not insanely-stubborn, they'll be more willing to follow them, and work with you. It's something not even I have completely nailed down, but it's something which has definitely helped a lot. By being the voice of reason, you put yourself in a position where others will listen to that reason, and have it resonate with them.