Archive through September 15, 2003
TV ClubHouse: Archive: House Philosophy...(another long analysis):
Archive through September 15, 2003
Onlyhuman | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 09:06 pm     In a post that I can no longer find, C1mag asked why the HGs let Ali get away with her behavior/game play and I started thinking about group dynamics. So you can blame C1 if you die of boredom during this long post. Whenever a group forms, it develops a set of standards of behavior by which the members of the group must abide in order to continue being a member of the group. Some of these rules are explicitly stated and some of them are implied. BB, by virtue of the fact that the purpose of the group is to judge and eliminate others, needs to establish the norms as quickly as possible. When evicted HGs return to judge the final 2 contestants, they often make subtle or even obvious reference to these standards when making their final votes. What I find particularly interesting is that not only have the various BB groups held different standards, they are largely influenced by the norms of the previous generation. In BB1, the HGs only nominated their fellow HGs, they did not evict them but the house had a general criteria for nominations that included how disruptive that individual was to the house and how productive that person was in the house. There was also a huge emphasis on friendship and emotional connections. Audience members, for the most part, used this same criteria for choosing whom to evict. In BB2, the advent of the HOH gave control to the HGs and they were free to evict whomever they choose. The house quickly split into two groups, Chilltown and TOP. Chilltown’s philosophy was based on the idea that in BB1 everyone was boring and hence the ratings were low. Much of their actions were to get attention and to get ratings. Under this standard, almost any lewd or obnoxious behavior was acceptable. In response to this group, TOP formed and developed their own standards, with the goal being the annihilation of the other group. Members spouted drivel about not caring who won, about only wanting to make sure no one from the other team won. Promises were made that included people willingly leaving the house once CT was conquered. Unfortunately, these were standards that could not be met in a competition for $500,000. When people returned to vote, they had to choose between a member of each philosophy. Will lived up to the standards set by his group, Nicole did not. Will won. In BB3, many of the HGs appeared disgusted by Will’s win and many statements of wanting a “good” person to win this year. Nominations and evictions were based upon this philosophy and Dani, Jason and Lisa took advantage of that. Liars (or perceived liars) were evicted early and nominations became an opportunity to explain how a person’s character resulted in their nomination. Roddy, who many perceived as a threat to win the money, survived many times because people chose to take out the “bad” person. It was only when Dani successfully painted him as “the devil” that he was finally evicted. In the end, though, the HGs felt that Dani had betrayed the values of the house and chose to award the money to “sweet” Lisa. From the beginning of BB4, the general philosophy has been one of “it’s just a game” and that anything that helps one win the game is acceptable. Many of the HGs feel that Dani’s game play should have been rewarded in the previous year and have seem determined to reward such behavior this year. This house has nominated and evicted based almost entirely on strategy. The two biggest exceptions are Dana’s eviction and Michelle’s nomination. The fact that Michelle was nominated at all had more to do with the emotional tone of the house that was dictating that Erika should leave. The mistake that Jee made was in believing that this tone would dictate how people would vote. Dana’s nomination was pure strategy on Ali’s part, yet the actual eviction was purely an emotional one. People wanted Dana out of the house because she threatened the emotional stability of everyone. The “it’s just a game” philosophy is intriguing because the two people who pushed it the hardest, Ali and Jun, have been the most successful at using emotional manipulation to cover their own actions and distract others. When Jun and Dana were nominated together, Jun made numerous references to Dana’s “campaigning”, repeatedly stating that Dana (unlike herself) was untrustworthy and would do anything to win, which would seem okay if it’s really “just a game”. Ali’s use of emotional manipulation when she was nominated (i.e. that it wasn’t fair because Dana had lied to her about being safe) was also an effective motivator in turning the tone from “it’s just a game” to “I deserve to be saved”. Many of the HGs ended up having an odd dichotomy from all of this. Justin, Jee, Robert, Jack and, to a lesser extent, Erika, while espousing the “it’s just a game” philosophy seemed unable to keep themselves from imposing some sort of moral code upon the game, stemming primarily from their own beliefs about team play and fairness. This limited the amount of game play they could actually engage in. On the other hand, Jun and Ali, by embracing the philosophy wholeheartedly, managed to maneuver and manipulate, twisting the ideals of the others to help them while constantly reiterating the house mantra of “it’s just a game.” In the end, Ali & Jun are going to the finals because they pushed they lived by the stated house philosophy while understanding and manipulating the personal philosophies of the individuals. It will be interesting to see which carries more weight with this jury...their personal beliefs or the house philosophy. |
Charvie | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 09:12 pm     That is the best explanation of what this BB4 was about. I love that you took the time and energy to espouse it. The only thing I would add is that the added element of an ex in the house help to promote the house philosophy that Alison and Jun played so well off of. Ex's under this type of situation are bound to get personal, especially when there is unresolved issues lying deep. |
Mizinvanccouver | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 09:12 pm     Excellent analogy Onlyhuman! You are absolutley correct I really don't know which way the vote would go this year....but your analogy has sure shed light on the group dynamics.Thanks for sharing! |
Csnog | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 09:34 pm     BB 4 also knows that the jury is sequestered and will not see everything that BB 3 saw. Most of the people that were evicted on BB 3 thought Dani should win. When they had time to see tapes and watch the show plus read the boards they changed their minds and their votes. Why HG's think they have to trash evicted HG's is beyond me except that maybe they need an excuse for doing it. My delight in this experience is watching them under a microscope, trying not to have favorites and seeing how they accomplish getting the prize. Some HG's are rude, crude and obnoxious. Some are nice, but all signed up for our entertainment, what they perceive as notoriety, and for the money. |
Sunrvrose | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 09:49 pm     Thanks, Onlyhuman. I am one of the ones who complain about long posts, ususlly they are just pointless speculation or bickering between posters. Yours is excellent. I think you have done a perfect analysis of BB4 and why Jun and Ali are where they are. But since neither of them make the moral grade (game playing only per your analysis) Do you have a guess as to how the Jury will go? I think that if coat-tail riding but equally scheming and bad mouth Jun wins, it will be sad. She is not a wit better than Ali and Ali played this dirty (IMHO) game better. |
Nexell2 | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 10:00 pm     Wonderful OH, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts. I found most intertesting, the idea that some HG's were attempting to impose their moral beliefs on others. Of course they are gone. I can't really know about Jun but Ali for sure would have loved all this discussion. Maybe next year many viewers will finally get their wish and the game will be played on a moral basis but don't anyone hold your breath. Arni has a show to do and ratings to think about. |
Sunrvrose | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 10:24 pm     Yep, and despite so much dispair on this site, the ratings are the best ever. What can be said about that except that Jerry Springer still has a show. (something about the lowest common denominator, or water seeking the lowest level) |
Nexell2 | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 10:31 pm     I forgot to add, if Arni changes a thing about the show he will lose it. I love it just the way it is. |
Bearware | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 10:37 pm     OnlyHuman - I think there's a Doctoral thesis in there somewhere! Great job! I've always thought that microcosms of society created their own 'cultures' with expectations and rules that were not always readily dientifiable to the outside. As a middle school teacher, I've believed that each school, the staff, and the students create a culture - and this is one of the reasons some schools are just more successful than others. It seems that the Big Brother house is another of those places that does create it's own cultural rules, and while we on the outside cannot completely understand them, those on the inside have learned them and adjusted to them. GREAT analysis! |
Meggieprice | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 10:46 pm     Awesome, awesome job summarizing the ebb and flow of each year. Do you have a prediction about next year? |
C1mag | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 10:47 pm     Well I wish I could take full credit for the analysis but actually I can't. However I TOTALLY agree with the analysis. What I had actually stated earlier about the house tempo does mirror these thoughts. Once the tempo was set there is no way you would want to be the one standing on the opposite side of it. If trash talking was evenly allowed throughout this season as it was then you couldn't skirt it. Ali and Jun just seemed to embrace it and do it better. To stand against it would have cost you a possible early eviction for fear of standing next to the "holier than thou" syndrom. I keep laughing at the idea that Ali or Jun are somehow Satans spawn for simply saying they hated someone in the house or calling them a name that was colorful and foul in context. There was so much more that went on under these conditions. You'd simply have to fault them all at this point and fairly come to the conclusion that perhaps this year it's best to let that idea go in evaluation of the over all winner. It's a great challenge to this years voting Jury. In short ... I like this post! Two thumbs up to Only. |
Mkcantjump | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 10:53 pm     I agree with everything you said C1, I usually do. Great thread Only Human. |
Onlyhuman | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 11:26 pm     Meggie, my prediction is that next year we will see something of a backlash against the "anything goes" philosophy, with the HGs once again trying to have a "good" winner. However, I do think we will hear more of the "it's a game" philosophy, though they will try to more clearly impose standards of "acceptable" behavior. I think the judgement of "good" will be less on the character of the persn (a la Roddy's nomination of Amy) and more a criticism of how one is playing the game. Game wise, I think we will see multiple secret alliances. At the same time, I think that anyone who appears to be trying to mimic Ali's or Jun's game will be an early target. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but that's just my guess based on past history. |
Starr | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 11:36 pm     Great thread Onlyhuman |
Onlyhuman | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 11:36 pm     Sunrvrose, thanks for taking the time to read my exceedingly wordy thoughts. I know you've said that you don't like these types of posts, so I'm honored you bothered to read this. As to who the jury will pick, I'm not really sure. My gut says that they will probably choose Jun because she played a good game and at least gave the appearance of being mature, intelligent and occasionally loyal, which would appeal to some of their personal biases. I also think that Ali did a very good job of convincing everyone that she WAS playing an emotional game, which goes against the "it's a game" philosophy. On the other hand, guys, in general, are very results oriented and the hyper-competitiveness of these men may make them respect all of Ali's competition wins. So, really, I don't know what will happen. In fact, this is the kind of dilemma that psychologists see as "crazy-making". I'm not really sure how Dana will handle it! |
Lancecrossfire | Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 11:48 pm     Only--great post!! YOu did an excellent job or pointing out some of the differences in each BB, as well as covering how the game was played in terms of what it took to get the win. I wonder if a good person can never win, since the rules are set up to allow just about anything to go, and the fact most people don't like the truth when it's not their truth? I have no idea who would win between Ali and Jun either--both are clearly "floaters" and have not really tried to hide it--well, couldn't since they really never were part of the J3 or Jack/Erika team. They went back and forth, and both alliances knew it. I've often wondered if Dani lost not because of what she said, but because people didn't see that side of her, so were let down by what they thought she was being in the game? It's clear if her DR's had matched what she showed in the game she would have won hands down. It seemed people respected her game playing--and respected Will's too. As you point out, we decided BB1, not the HG's. That made it a totally different game IMHO. The funny thing is with BB, it appears that the game may very well be personal in nature--either that or they allow the personal stuff because it gets the rating. Not sure which |
Wendo | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 12:52 am     Fascinating post Onlyhuman. Very well thought out analysis of what many would call a "crazy" game. LOL! I would like to add one additional note for you to consider. When you talk about this years HG's thinking Dani played the game the best. They also said they felt that Lisa didn't deserve the win because she didn't do anything to get to final 2; that she was dragged there or, rode other HG's coat tails. I think this also added to the standards set in the house. Not only did they think Dani "played" best, the didn't believe Lisa "earned" the win. Anyway, just wanted to add that. Again, excellent commentary. |
Bigd | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 06:22 am     Well Onlyhuman, not only do I not like to read long posts, I don't make it a habit to post in the BB threads, but I am compelled to tell you what a great analysis you have made. I think you nailed it and I am very impressed. Thanks! I find it even more fascinating since my husband and I have this argument regularly. He argues with me when I state I would do anything I needed to do in this game. He thinks I wouldn't lie and cheat and manipulate to the means necessary and I KNOW that I would. I wouldn't use sexuality since I value my husband and marriage but I am certain I would use any other means even though that is not how I live my life. It IS a game in there. |
Pbnj | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 07:06 am     great thread! wendo~I agree with what you wrote...yet it's obvious that the jury deliberated and unanimously voted for the one who was there by 'luck'(Lisa). Do you think it was Roddy who influenced the vote against Dani? or did everyone realize how they were played by her? I would bet that outcome played a role in Arnie's decision to sequestrate the jury. *edit* just reread your post wendo and you said 'THIS' yr's cast. I still think last years decided that anyone other than Dani should win because of her deception. I wonder if this jury will feel that way about Jun...she was more deceptive (in a way) than Ali because she really made others feel as if she was with them all the way. Yes, they knew she was a floater but I think that each alliance thought she was playing the other one, not them. At least that's my take on it. Interesting anaylysis OH, et al. Each BB seems to be shaped by the previous one....I've always thought this show would make a facsinating sociological study. I'm sure it is being studied unofficially.....not just for entertainment  |
Onlyhuman | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 07:31 am     C1 & Nexell, I think I may have misstated about the others imposing a moral code. What I should have said is that they could not let go of their own personal moral code, though it interferred with their ability to do anything to win. They had such a lack of respect for the floaters as people and game players, and yet they all acknowledged that they were playing a good game. What they couldn't do was let go of their own beliefs about fair play, team work, and loyalty long enough to line up new alliances and long term plans. Erika & Jee were probably the weakest in this regard and most likely would have tried to jump sooner except they could not completely turn their back on their original loyalties. Essentially, they were all eliminated because their personal ideas of morality and game play would not let them truly embrace the housse philosophy. |
Csnog | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 08:28 am     Would not personality's come into play? Jee needed the backing of macho men to feel that way himself. Jun played that role in his early life. Erika played the daughter role to Jack just as she wanted to believe that she was playing the big sister role to Ali. Jun needed the kitchen for her cover and safety. Justin was the one person that I saw that some could have converted to their side. Justin was the one person in the house that understood Ali. Jack, Dave and Erika could have persuaded Justin before they made the DT membership. Justin wanted to be part of that alliance but they did not pursue it. Justin warned Robert and Jee to remain with Erika and get Ali out but they didn't listen and emotions came into play. So many IF'S. |
Maris | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 08:33 am     House philosophy? The end justifies the means. If Ali wins big brother then the word of advice to future big brother winners - The cook goes to the end but comes in second. |
Ezgoing | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 08:37 am     Onlyhuman, I'd like to add my voice to those who've already expressed their appreciation for your excellent, insightful post! Great analysis and well-stated summation. Thanks Only for an enjoyable, thought-provoking read! Not a rarity coming from you. |
Kmjm | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 11:07 am     Onlyhuman, I saw your post last night but I'm out here on the east coast and I wanted to read when I was alert enough to savour it. I always enjoy your posts. Fascinating analysis. Yes, I've heard the criticisms of Lisa this year too- even down to imitating her voice. I hadn't thought much about the dynamics of one year to the next, but you're right, the influence is there. I'm going to really enjoy the results in the finale now. It will be interesting to see where the group goes. Thanks for giving me a reason to keep on watching to the end. It's posts like yours that keep me coming back here- what an great place this is, with such intelligent, thoughtful, creative and funny people!! |
Pbnj | Monday, September 15, 2003 - 11:17 am     Posted by Maris~~ "If Ali wins big brother then the word of advice to future big brother winners - The cook goes to the end but comes in second." That was certainly true in BB2 with Nicole (the cook) taking second. I don't remember...did Dani cook? I know there were other BIGGER reasons for not voting them winner but it's an interesting observation Maris |
|