As far as I can tell, the “werewolf” thing is how large parts of normal, polite society work by default
This is true, and important. Except “werewolf” is a misleading analogy for it—they’re not intentionally colluding with other secret werewolves, and it’s not a permanent attribute of the participants. It’s more that misdirection and obfuscation are key strategies for some social-competitive games, and these games are part of almost all humans motivation sets, both explicitly (wanting to have a good job, be liked, etc.) and implicitly (trying to win every status game, whether it has any impact on their life or not).
The ones who are best at it (most visibly successful) firmly believe that the truth is aligned with their winning the games. They’re werewolf-ing for the greater good, because they happen to be convincing the villagers to do the right things, not because they’re eating villagers. And as such, calling it “werewolf behavior” is rejected.
I’m pretty sure this varies substantially depending on context—in contexts that demand internal coordination on simulacrum level 1 (e.g. a marginal agricultural community, or a hunting or raiding party, or a low-margin business in a very competitive domain), people often do succeed at putting the shared enterprise ahead of their egos.
This may be true—desperation encourages in-group cooperation (possibly with increased out-group competition) and wealth enables more visible social competition. Or it may be a myth, and there’s just different forms of domination and information obfuscation in pursuit of power, based on different resources and luxuries to be competed over. We don’t have much evidence either way of daily life in pre-literate societies (or illiterate subgroups within technically-literate “civilizations”).
We do know that groups of apes have many of the same behaviors we’re calling “werewolf”, which is some indication that it’s baked in rather than contextual.
This is true, and important. Except “werewolf” is a misleading analogy for it—they’re not intentionally colluding with other secret werewolves, and it’s not a permanent attribute of the participants. It’s more that misdirection and obfuscation are key strategies for some social-competitive games, and these games are part of almost all humans motivation sets, both explicitly (wanting to have a good job, be liked, etc.) and implicitly (trying to win every status game, whether it has any impact on their life or not).
The ones who are best at it (most visibly successful) firmly believe that the truth is aligned with their winning the games. They’re werewolf-ing for the greater good, because they happen to be convincing the villagers to do the right things, not because they’re eating villagers. And as such, calling it “werewolf behavior” is rejected.
I’m pretty sure this varies substantially depending on context—in contexts that demand internal coordination on simulacrum level 1 (e.g. a marginal agricultural community, or a hunting or raiding party, or a low-margin business in a very competitive domain), people often do succeed at putting the shared enterprise ahead of their egos.
This may be true—desperation encourages in-group cooperation (possibly with increased out-group competition) and wealth enables more visible social competition. Or it may be a myth, and there’s just different forms of domination and information obfuscation in pursuit of power, based on different resources and luxuries to be competed over. We don’t have much evidence either way of daily life in pre-literate societies (or illiterate subgroups within technically-literate “civilizations”).
We do know that groups of apes have many of the same behaviors we’re calling “werewolf”, which is some indication that it’s baked in rather than contextual.