According to the PM I got, I had the most credible vegetarian entry, and it was ranked as much more credible than my actual (meat-eating) beliefs. I’m not sure how I feel about that.
Doesn’t surprise me, but I lean towards the opposite reasoning. I think the majority of people understand vegetarian/vegan arguments, so the imposters don’t have any kind of disadvantage—but vegetarian/vegan people likely think the majority of people don’t understand those arguments (or else why wouldn’t they arrive at the same conclusions), which results in a miscalibration about how to represent their beliefs to people.
According to the PM I got, I had the most credible vegetarian entry, and it was ranked as much more credible than my actual (meat-eating) beliefs. I’m not sure how I feel about that.
Impostor entries were generally more convincing than genuine responses. I chalk this up to impostors trying harder to convince judges.
But who knows? Maybe you were a vegetarian in a past life! ;)
Doesn’t surprise me, but I lean towards the opposite reasoning. I think the majority of people understand vegetarian/vegan arguments, so the imposters don’t have any kind of disadvantage—but vegetarian/vegan people likely think the majority of people don’t understand those arguments (or else why wouldn’t they arrive at the same conclusions), which results in a miscalibration about how to represent their beliefs to people.
ETA: Likewise the reverse.