Archive through September 18, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Archive FOUR: Game. Not a Game... Game? Not a Game.: Archive through September 18, 2002

Wcv63

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 08:02 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Lance good post and good arguments for why you say we are seeing the contestants true character. I just happen to believe that this "true character" is one that is magnified and distorted by the extradordinary situation they find themselves in.

The basics of survival aren't an issue. BUT I believe that the basics of emotional survival ARE. I believe living in a situation shrouded in constant stress and paranoia has got to take its toll.

I'm willing to concede that some of the negative attributes we see in these people are a PART of their true character. But I think it's just as important to consider the positive attributes when making a judgement on true character.

Additionally, watching these people, even as intimately as we have, for as long as we have, does not mean that we KNOW these people. We're familiar with them. We know a lot about them. We recognize certain quirks and idiosynchrocies. But we don't know them. We don't know them like their friends and family know them.

Good, bad or indifferent these are all imperfect human beings and I think that the four people left in the house are basically decent and good individuals no matter how they may have acted in the house.

Niceguy

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 09:42 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Maybe I've relaxed a bit because it is the last few days but I see your point Wcv. We are looking at these people through a prism. Danielle still comes off too weird for me to accept in a lot of ways but it is through that prism I'm seeing her.

Niceguy

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 09:46 am EditMoveDeleteIP
It makes me wonder how Ethan from S3 would come off viewed through this prism. He's considered the nicest guy so far to win one of these high stakes reality game shows.

Pesto

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 09:49 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Lance, your post sucked. Wanna fight? :)

(just kidding... I love the vigorous debate on this thread and board even when it sometimes turns nasty)

Honestly though, what a great thread and so many interesting points of view offered from a diversity of perspectives. The main reason I like big brother is its "crude psychological experiment" aspect, and I broaden that to include the observers like us making judgments, offering opinions not only on the HGs, but also on each other. My enjoyment of the show is truly magnified by being able to observe and discuss others' reactions to what I am witnessing in the house.

I might not "like" [insert HG name] but it is vitally important to me to understand why someone else might. And it always amazes me every year when I debate good friends with whom I share (at least think I share) common ethical framework/tastes/ proclivities and find out that they have the exact opposite opinions/likes/dislikes than me regarding BB. This is why it is important to remember that we don't really know these people and we are seeing them in an artificial environment. I could not agree more with wcv3's post above.

Wcv63

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 09:50 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Whooo hoooo!!! A convert!! I'm so very excited that someone agrees with me!

**cough** It's okay. I've settled down now. :O

Actually Niceguy that was one of my points. I think even the nicest guy would have some difficulty maintaining a pristine image if they were examined 24/7. After all...nobody is perfect. Also, nice people and those with high personal standards are sometimes held to a higher standard by the viewers, inasmuch, any break in "the image" is fodder for an "AHA!!! Now we see his true character!" type of discussion.

Spunky

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 11:24 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Yes, after a while there is no other way but to show your "true self"... (referring to the initial post). No one can keep a mask for this long and I agree this is the real Jason, this is the real Amy, this is the real Lisa and this is definitely the real Danielle we're seeing.

Although I believe some environments may condition your actions and thoughts, after a while your "true self" is exposed because there is a tendency to "adapt" to several environments and act more naturally after a while.

But they're human, just like you and me, and after a while we get used to their behavior and it seems to me the more you watch them the less shocked you get at their antics, because you know them so well that you almost expect them to react the way they do.

What the internet allows us to do is to observe them and judge them, but I doubt we would be any worse or any better than they are.

Wendo

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 01:32 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Niceguy, I agree with your analogy of viewing the HG's through a "prism". I think we're observing certain characteristics of the HG's true characters, however, through a prism which distorts, magnifies, and alters it a bit. Thanks for that observation.

I think we know the HG's in many ways, but to a point. Yes, we see them 24/7 and all their little habits, good and bad. But, as Wcv63 astutely pointed out, it's impossible to *know* them as their family and friends know them. (Good post Wcv63.)

Tobor, cool! And thanks for your post too. :)

Lancecrossfire

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 02:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
No questions about not being able to know them completely—such as a close family member would know them. We end up seeing them for 3 months—and as other BB HG’s have pointed out, once they get out people actually say to them they feel like they know them.

I think the way we feel like we know them is through their actions. (actually know them as opposed feeling like we know them after seeing them for 3 months)

I think someone like Dani is seen as most likely being a controlling person by nature. And we figure this out by her actions in the house. So we may see 5 different actions repeated that will lead us to speculate that she is controlling. If we are fair, we will look for those actions in situations where she isn’t so much playing the game as she is just existing over the course of the game. (such as comments made or actions during a normal conversation or within the group for daily activities).

We can further look at her situation we know about her outside life. She had kids at an early age and brought them up pretty much on her own. She has been a contributing member of society at the same time. That can’t be done without taking control of situations and making choices and holding yourself and other people to them.

That is just aspect of who Dani is though in life outside the house. There are others we may identify and be able to figure out with some degree of certainly (that degree may well be small as well as large)

I think the same can be said of Amy and Marc too. We get glimpses of certain things over and over when they are pretty much out of “game mode”. I think a number of things pointed out about Marc has been verified after he got out. But again, it still isn’t the entire “who is Marc”.

For those who left early, I think it’s harder to pin down what a true portion of a HG personality is. We say Lori, although if she were still in the house, we would 1) be making more judgments about what she is really like) and 2) has more information to base them on.

Of course all this hinges on making the evaluations by what is there—not by what you like or don’t like about them.

If you pay attention to the flavor of the board and how the game is going, you may notice that we play on the board how the HGs are playing in BB. When things get ugly, we get ugly. When they get intense, we get intense. When funny things happen, our collective mood lightens. When the just “are there” like they are now, we collectively get bored (you’d be surprised how many times that has been said in the past couple of days).

I love this game!

Jaysgal

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 04:16 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"I comprehend more clearly what you (Tobor) were discussing here. And, I think my posts in response missed that. It's apparent that I did not "get" the intent clearly.

As Lance stated, Tobor, thank you for starting the thread as I do understand, now, what you were posing here. I misinterpreted, I admit that fully. (Sheesh, so much for my English degree.) :/"


Uh-oh! Confession from a die-hard Danielle fan! :O I cannot believe it! I'm kidding!

I was too tired to respond last night adn wanted to respond today to your posts and other people's. But now that you confessed that there was a misunderstanding, I'll save myself the time--despite how tempting. :D

I guess I just have Oregonfire and Wcv63 left to argue with. :Q Hehehe! ;) I must admit that Lancecrossfire has pretty much covered my argument, though.

Wcv63

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 04:41 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Bring it on Jaysgal! I'm ready!

Allietex

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 06:18 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I guess the thing that disturbs me the most about watching a show like BB and reading the boards is how the fans (including myself) will take one characteristic of a person and turn that into an indictment of the person's whole character.

For expample we see Roddy and Dani as controlling and manipulative, so they must be evil people. They might be controlling and manipulative in real life but it may be channeled in such a way that it is a positive thing.

How many of you have known people like that. They are president of the PTA, they coach little league, they organize fund drives, they serve as room mothers. Then we see people who have been successful at running businesses, or being generals, or being winning coaches. We admire them greatly and think what great people they are. They are controlling people or they would not get done the things done that need to be done to be successful.

If they were put into the BB house, I venture to say they would all be viewed as controlling and manipulative people. They almost have to be to achieve what they do. Heck there is no one more manipulative than a good mother or school teacher and look how we admire them.

But in real life they have other avenues to express those characteristics in ways which are less offensive and thus their actions come off as more virtuous. In the BB house, their means are limited because they are not with people who have chosen to defer to them. They do not have the luxury of choosing the people they associate with and have to take whoever is thrown in with them. And eveything they say and do is subject to scrutiny by the others is the house. Paronoia sets in with everybody. It has to. It is inevitable.

We see Amy drinking too much a couple of times and suddenly she is an achololic. We see Chiaria talking graphically about sex and suddenly she is a wh*re. We see Gerry not wash his hands and suddenly he is dirty in body and in thoughts. The list goes on and on. As Marc is so fond of saying perception is everything.

I do believe the traits we see in the houseguests are probably a part of their real makeup, but the situation can distort those traits to make them seem more than they really are. I also believe some of the houseguests probably show more of themselves than others, but I do not believe any of them come across as they really are.

We hear terms like spoiled, selfish, spiteful, compassionate, loyal, warm, caring, and many others, good and bad and we attach those traits to certain houseguests. But can't a person be both spoiled and warm and loving? Can't they be both selfish and caring? Are the traits mutually exclusive? People are not one dimensional, they can have many contradictary traits at the same time. And different situations bring out different traits.

People compare the BB game to football and poker and these are good analogies as far as they go. I think, however, that being in BB is more like being a spy or an undercover police officer, if that could be turned into a real life game. They lie and deceive people, some of whom become their friends. There is no moral ambiguity in lying in the context of their job, as there is none in the context of the BB game, however...

I agree with what almost everyone says. I am disappointed in the extreme bashing and trashing of fellow houseguests this year. I do not see that as part of the game, and it seems that just about everyone does it.

But if we are to choose a winner by the absence of bashing, then we just need to call the game off and all go home. Since that is not an option, how is a winner to be decided? Do we rate the bashing as some of us try to do? Do we decide that one person has been nicer than another? Has one been less nasty to the others. Does one deserve it more than another because they behaved better?

A spy or undercover police officer is judged by how well he deceived the bad guys to make it possible to aprehend them, not by how many times he lied or manipulated people.

I don't think they award the Super Bowl or the World Series to the teams with the nicest players or the ones who trash talk the least. We may despise the ones who are guilty of it, but the game is awarded to the team that plays the best and that is still standing at the end of the game. That is impossible to do in BB.

Although it is fun to speculate and discuss it endlessly as we do, it is a little foolish to get geniuely upset or angry about it. It is just a game and we need to keep our perspective about it.


The two who get to the end are the ones who played the game the best or they would not be there. How they decided to play, whether agressive or passive or whether they were naughty or nice is really irrelevant. They made it.

Then how to decide between the last two. It would be like having a horse race and when you get within a length of the end of the race, call a halt and let the rest of the jockeys decide who deserved to win. If you really look at it, the premise of the BB game is ludicrus. There is no way the jury can be impartial and "fair" about picking the "best player."

It will all come down to who they like and admire the most, for whatever reason. And each member of the jury will have their own reasons which they will believe to be valid. And that is the way it should be because that is the way the game is set up.

Oregonfire

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 06:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thank you for your post, Allietex. You said very eloquently what I've been trying to say--obviously not very well! You are my hero.

Onlyhuman

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 06:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Allietex....

BRAVO!!!!!!!

That really summed up the complexity of the people and the situation. Thank you!

Gidget

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 06:36 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree with everything Allietex said except "the two who get to the end are the ones who played the game the best or they would not be there."

I agree strategy and gamesmanship is important but I also think there is a lot of luck involved as well.

Allietex

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 06:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree, Gidget, that luck is involved in who gets to the end of the game; the only thing is luck is part of any game. In a ball game, a bounce here a bounce there. In games of chance, the draw of the cards, the fall of the dice. Luck is an intergral part of most games. Perhaps only in games like chess can luck be discounted. In Big Brother, luck is a part of the game as strategy.

Sanfranjoshfan

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 06:59 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"It will all come down to who they like and admire the most, for whatever reason. And each member of the jury will have their own reasons which they will believe to be valid. And that is the way it should be because that is the way the game is set up."

Exactly! That's what I find so fascinating about this game....trying to walk the fine line of subterfuge and manipulation within the context of a ruthless and strategic game....while AT THE SAME time trying to maintain the admiration and respect of those that you undermined and eliminated along the way is a fascinating experiment in the art of human duplicity, loyalty, and respect. The whole idea of this "ludicrous" (great choice of words) twist at the end is what gives it that special "Oomph!"....giving that final power over who wins the big bucks to the finalist's opponents!

This is what makes games like BB and Survivor so much fun.....it has to be played on so many levels all at the same time, while, for all they really know, the final outcome could simply come down to a matter of luck.....such as the "best player" winding up opposite the "MOST LOVED player" at the end.

GREAT game....

Gidget

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 07:07 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The bottom line is the TVCH participation is much more stimulating and intelligent than the game. Not a single person I work with watches the show and I had to bowl last Thursday night and I asked them to put it on in the bar and with several hundred people in the bowling center I was the only one watching. Only really smart students of life can appreciate BB. Maybe next year they'll even cast some clever people like us.

Tobor7

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 08:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I would like to see 4 post grad profs, 4 H.S. drop outs and 4 people over 60.
No cash prize.
No weekly payoff.
No SAG members.
No internet censorship. NO FOTH!
You want to walk off the show?
Go right ahead. Put alternates in then.
Call the show "BB4 - The Play For Pride"

--------------

I have some serious comments and additions to add to this thread tonight, but I don't have time to get them in during prime time.

Wcv63

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 08:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Allietex great post. Very articulate and shows remarkable clarity of thought.

I agree with everything you have said and would like to take it one tiny little step further to expand on your paragraph regarding the trash talking and bashing. I agree that it's not a part of the game but I do believe it is somewhat a product of the enviroment. I also feel that the trash talking certainly doesn't define the "true character" of those participating but is perhaps a by product of the paranoia and limited interactions.

Has anyone ever seen the movie "Donnie Brasco" about the undercover police detective who infiltrates the mob and assumes the character of a "made guy"? At one point Brasco is struggling with his assumed characteristics creeping over into his "real" life. The part he was playing started to consume him.

That is kind of how I view the game of Big Brother. Each person has to be ever vigilant and cautious about revealing too much while gathering information to help them progress. Those competitors become friends and the internal conflict involved in terminating their chances at the money cause them to look for flaws to justify those actions. Every once in a while they try to remind themselves why they chose the path they did and dredge up the justifications they used in order to convince themselves they made the right decision.

True character being exposed? I think not. The game face is on and the game is a rough one. It's one of the tricks used to get them through. We don't have to like it. The jury doesn't have to like it. But it is human nature in a game of survival. Emotional survival.

Tobor7

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 01:54 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Dani must have been "listening" to this thread.
In the HT tonight she was talking about this topic.
I heard it live, but the LF's didn't get if WFW.

---- THIS IS FROM THE LF'S>>>>>>>
"D - R talking about the producers and saying how cleaver he is. Then about Josh saying his own stuff it was an act.
They don't think you can act like something unless deep down there is some of that in you."

She went on to say that you can't ACT smart unless you ARE smart. She also said some other things along the same lines.

Eden

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 02:10 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Tobor, good luck finding a producer for your new show. Allietex pointed out how WRONG you are in your sanctimonious, judgmental observations about the HG and why. This IS a GAME. A GAME!

Tobor7

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 03:22 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Lance said:
"I think the way we feel like we know them is through their actions. (actually know them as opposed feeling like we know them after seeing them for 3 months)"

I would like to add to that.
We also have our own life experience to use as well. Anyone ever have to switch schools?
All of a sudden you are thrown into a group of people that know each other and don't know you. Even at a young age you were able to observe and assess those around you. Even without direct interaction WITH you. You can certainly pick out the bully without too much trouble. The nerds, the jocks, the popular people. You know what they are all about because you recognize character traits you have seen before in the kids in your old school. After the first day (8 hours) you have new knowledge based on your life experience, and you use it the next day.

OF COURSE you may be wrong here and there. That is how you learn. But this ability to size people up only grows as you do.

School concept not working for you?
Well, did you ever start a new job? Deal with a bunch of new personalities? How long did it take to figure out the people around you? The slackers, the kiss-asses, the flirts, the ones you can look to for help and the ones you can't. (Not right all the time-- but getting better at it time and again.)

And so we have this ability, and we use this ability when we assess the HG's with our own life experience and what we see of them.

I have known many Josh types. A few Jasons-- one of them was my H.S. freshman year roommate (his nickname was "Bible Boy") and we all loved him. Many Roddy types, a few Amys, tons of Gerrys, tons of Lisas, maybe a Chiara, 10 Marcis at least, etc.
NOT FULL CLONE matches, but enough to take what you know about someone like her and create an amalgam with what you see. And their ongoing actions either build or break the character assessment.

There are other ways to build this database of life experience. Look for similarities between all your past ex-relationships.

Anyway, you have a lot of valid things to use in your assessment of the HGs.

Sometimes your opinions may change. Try to find out why. There are some easy things that tell me all I need to know about a person. I see or hear of any animal cruelty then that it is for me. I can't be around them. Animal cruelty festers in only the darkest of hearts. And far away from me.

For a show like this it is fun to root for a player. You identify with that player. You say, if I was playing on the show I would be playing like THAT person. (What person would you be playing like?)

And you watch that person. But you selected him early on when character information was slight. As time goes on he does something the others in the house don't like. You try to understand why he is not liked. He is doing what you would be doing. And then it becomes clear to you why the others react to him. You are seeing your own flaws out there and they are not working. This must be the hardest thing to watch. Especially to a child watching a parent in the house. You finally see how others react to you. To your parents. A RARE CHANCE.

From the viewer, there is a lot projected into the HGs. Maybe your alter ego is in there. You get to second guess every move.

I'm not saying there are only 12 types of people in the world. Only 12 in this show. And by watching, assessing, thinking and using your life experience you certainly size these people up enough. Make your profile and see if it fits.
After the months of watching these 4-- (well you know where I stand on this.)

Remember, the producers went through a lengthy process to pick them. They had to assess them on who they are. Psych tests, IQ tests, talking with their family & relatives, many many levels. They want to KNOW the 12 types they are selecting. It is the only way they can create their formula. It is possible 1 or 2 may have fooled the testers, but it doesn't matter.

I've seen enough to make a fair assessment based on my life experience.

There are a few events coming up that will confirm character - either way, but it will confirm it or lack thereof.

Tobor7

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 03:45 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Just a little about Donnie Brasco here---
The movie was based on a book by Joe Pistone (the real guy that did it) and he was a highly-trained FBI agent. FBI agents that are selected for undercover work are very experienced, have extensive undercover training and have been hand-selected for the specific operation. Not all operations go right, but more often than not they do. In FBI undercover work, one mistake could cost you your life. You are highly motivated to do the job right.

Comparison with FBI undercover agents and BB HG's is not a fair comparison.

Tobor7

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 04:05 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Now for the un-coming character moments.

Safe to assume Amy goes on Thursday.

If Lisa wins HOH, smart move is to kick Jason. Honor move would also be to kick Jason as Dani promised her to the final 3. Against Dani, Lisa wins.

If Dani wins HOH, smart move is to kick Jason because she knows she can't beat Jason. She thinks she could beat Lisa. Honor move is to kick Lisa. But then she loses against Jason. Lose-lose all around here for her.

If Jason wins HOH we have some interesting character moments. Jason can beat both of them. The Honor move would be to kick Lisa and keep Dani. The Winning move is the same. Either way he keeps Dani.

BUT!! IF he has huge character and has not liked the way Dani has trash talked the others while he had to sit back quietly and bite his tongue he could make the grand move.

He kicks Dani and takes Lisa. On the surface it will look like he is a rat for screwing Dani over. BUT in his speech before the voting, he explains how he was trapped with Dani and even though he didn't like to watch her do her bad things, he was not able to stop it. Until Now. This was his final moment to make it right and make her pay for her actions. He took her out of the finals because he wants her to see that her actions cannot result in a payday for her.
He took retribution for all the other HG's that felt she did them wrong. He would say, "I have finally righted a wrong that was long overdue. If you want to punish me for that, then ok. If you think it was the right thing that had to be done. Then you understand."
After that speech Lisa wouldn't be left with much.
Jason wins AND justifies why he didn't stop Dani from what she was doing. He just wanted to wait for the right time when it would count.

If he pulled that off... then that's CHARACTER!

Laffy

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 04:22 am EditMoveDeleteIP
tobor,

i changed schools, and cities, when i was 12. my family moved from PA to Miami. the move to an unfamiliar environment changed me wuite a bit. in PA i was a bookworm, a scholar, and an introvert, because my friends and i attended college prep schools and my peers were like me.

in fla i learned to surf, party, and socialize, because my "peers" were less serious about school and the sun was there all year, etc. the environmental change had an affect on my personality.

i liked your "new job/new school" analogy, but let's look at it with the HGs being the "new" people.

remember when a new kid came to your school? remember how the other kids would judge the new ones based on appearance, manner pf speech, or a day or two of interaction, then label them forever?

remember when the kids found out that they were wrong in their first impressions, and how some never admitted to being wrong?

these HGs have lived an average of 30+ years and we have seen them for less than 90 days of those lives, and in an artificial environment. no, we don't know them, not at all. we know them only as HGs for that is ALL we are seeing.

our opinions are based on what used to be called their "Q" rating...how they come across on TV. it's how they pick people for commercials, and what every politician tries to achieve. it really is no more that "perception" and i, for one, would not want to be judged solely on that basis.

i love the socialogical experiment aspect of the game also. it is interesting to see how they react to the stress and pressure, especially with a half mil on the line. but i would never claim to know any of them.