Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-27638357-20160519221405/@comment-27391152-20160521015316

Zypker124 wrote:

Tozza6 wrote:

Zypker124 wrote:

I agree with all of this, except for the part about not making enemies being different from the social game. If making enemies is an example for a bad social game, why wouldn't NOT making enemies be a good social game? In my opinion, the social game is about being RESPECTED, and clearly Michele was respected enough to get votes. This is a faulty reasoning that is called "Substitution of Converse of Inverse for its Proposition". I pulled up one of my critical thinking books just to explain what it is: "Given that a proposition is true, we know that its converse and inverse may be either true or false. But one of the most common mistakes in reasoning is the substitution of the converse or the inverse of a proposition for the proposition. That is, given a true statement, that many people will use the converse (or inverse) of the statement and think that it must be true because the statement is true." Let me give you an example for which this logic is present: Obviously, this is faulty reasoning. Just because stopping at the store would require an hour does NOT mean that if he's an hour late, he must've stopped at the store. He could've been an hour late for multiple reasons; a car accident, a detour, or some urgent emergency. Here's another example: It might make sense at first, but if you really think about it, it's an illogical conclusion. Just because she won't get an A doing the problems doesn't mean she'll get an A if she does the problems. Likewise, same logic applies to the highlighted statement from the quote. Just because making enemies is a bad social game does not mean that not making enemies is a good social game. It's an illogical fallacy. Once again, for your last statement, I'll just refer to the tweet: https://twitter.com/domhrv/status/733297779267776514. Fair enough, you proved your point for that one sentence, but still I've already proven why that tweet is inaccurate/irrelevant to my contention because (for the last time) Michele was respected by the jury because of SOME reason, and as we saw in the FTC speeches, it was not because she was the lesser of the three evils. The jury praised her game, and we can assume they voted her because she made relationships with the jury better than Aubry.
 * I know some people will say "Oh, Michele went 24 days without attending Tribal Council, she must be good." That's because of challenge wins by her tribe, and from what we saw of her pre-merge, she wasn't very good at challenges and brought her tribe down. It has little to do with her. If anything, she became a challenge hindrance.
 * Joe medical evacuation helped her. I don't think it's that much of a surprise, since many people have reiterated this statement, so I won't dwell on it too much. She was going at F5.
 * I just want to point out that there's a difference between a good social game and not making any enemies. From what I saw in the episodes, no one specifically said Michele played a good social game. They just said she was a threat and she didn't have any enemies on the jury, which is different from being viewed as a good social player.
 * Mr. Wong told his wife, "If I stop at the store on the way home from work, I'll be about an hour late." That afternoon, Mrs. Wong realized that her husband was 55 minutes overdue from work, and she thought, "He must've stopped at the store on his way home."
 * The teacher told Emma, "If you don't do these extra credit problems, then you won't get an A this semester." Emma did all of the extra credit problems because she wanted an A, and she thought the teacher had promised her an A if she did the extra credit problems.