Ito, R. et al
While playing a round of social deduction game “Among Us,” local psychology major Beverly Wan has applied more analytical thinking to winning the game than she has dedicated in her entire dissertation paper.
“So, I’ve concluded that Carl isn’t the killer because he would’ve got me when we were in the navigation room together, and Sandy would’ve played it safe and distracted me by shutting down the oxygen first.” Said Wan, who currently has a better understanding of the games map than of her own thesis statement. “I have to do more research on Stephen to see if he’s sus or not.”
To her credit, Wan was trying to make use of her education to help her team win. “According to scapegoat theory, it’s easier to frame someone who won’t stand up for themselves. So, if someone accuses Geri of something, I’ll know they’re probably the imposter.” Wan explained, despite making no mention of that theory anywhere in her paper.
When questioned, Wans’ professor and teammate Dr. Marcus Longham says he’s quite impressed with her critical thought process. “Beverly is making some really high IQ plays this game. If she’s putting forward half this much work into her paper, I look forward to reading it.” Longham said, unaware that this is the most brain power Wan as used all month. “I just hope she’s not the imposter or we’re all screwed.”
At time of writing, Wan was reassuring the other writers that she is feeling really good about the essay she doesn’t know she forgot to write a bibliography for and totally had time for another game.
