Game or Human Nature?
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Game or Human Nature?

Earthmother

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 08:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
As I was getting ready for work this morning I was listening to a panel discussion on warfare. The experts were saying that when in battle in order to harm or kill the enemy, which is usually not in your nature, you have to be able to demonize that group to the point that you have justification for your own acts.

After digesting what I had heard I thought of BB. Is it a game? Sure it is because you have a winner and loser. Don't we always specify a winner and loser in war? Don't we always specify a winner and loser in the courtroom, each side trying to make the other look guilty or evil? Therefore is life a game?

As I thought further I remembered playing softball as a kid and the coach saying before the game, "kill em, humiliate them!" Did she mean it in the literal sense? Of course not, but it's that kill or be killed attitude the permiates every competition sport. Have I not heard my husband, the most gentle man on earth, yell, scream, laugh and thoughly enjoy when his football or baseball team make a laughing stock out of their opponents?

Perhaps now I can see that Ali, Jun, Dani, Nicole and many others in this game have used this same defense mechinism when playing BB. "It's not in my nature to hurt people, but I must win, therefore to justify my hurting them I must make them look as though they deserved it." The last week in the house was the worst, but is it because they were gloating and being just plain nasty, or was it because they needed to make the others look bad in their own eyes so they didn't look so bad to themselves?

Maris

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 08:36 am EditMoveDeleteIP
It isnt human nature, it is the nature of the people selected for the show. This is who they screen for and what sponsors pay for.

Cameramanbob

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
EM! Such heavy thoughts on a Monday morning! LOL - But I am a sucker for philosopical & ethical discourse. Especially when it comes to such unanswerable questions as these. I appreciate your efforts to start an interesting thread.

As a kid I used to watch war movies and found them just facinating. I remember one WW1 pic where David Niven was flying Sopwith Camels (like Snoopy in 'Peanuts') and you really got the impression that the British Fighter ideal was someone who ruthlessly killed the enemy without becoming emotionally involved. As a kid I wondered if that was possible....

As an adult I never see that kind of thing. All I see are Mike Tysons talking trash and biting ears and going to jail for rape while protesting innocence. (What kills me is that Tyson still has no problem getting girlfriends!) You could try to argue that boxers are professionals who only demonise the opponent for the sake of the game and that they are not like that in 'real life.' But - I'm not buying it. (How much money do they spend on publicists 'cleaning up their image' I wonder...)

In the Bhagavad Gita, there is counsel that one must perform one's duties dispassionately and 'leave the results to God' but if I did that I'd stay in bed all day, LOL! I have to get emotionally motivated in order to act. I'm just glad I don't have to be angry to do what I do every day. And for those who Do have to be negative to succeed - they have my sympathy & my wishes that there was a better way.

Earthmother

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:53 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Bob, Mondays are always heavy...lol

Amchess

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 11:21 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Reminds me of the disintegration of behavior in "Lord of the Flies". Stick that pig!

Monalisahi

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 11:26 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Earth....lol....my daughter used to have a coach like that.....he was fired real quick.

Vskatefan

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 01:38 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Cameramanbob, there are millions of reasons Tyson still gets girlfriends :)

Maris

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 01:38 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think he is broke, so would that be the number of inkspots on his tattoo?

Cangaroo

Monday, September 29, 2003 - 04:34 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Amchess...great analogy! Now I can't get that darn image out of my head and it was soooooo many years ago I read that book....too many for that to still be so very vivid in my brain.

Spunky

Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 08:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
This thread also caught my attention...(I was checking to see if the Live Chat was on).
Very good questions by Earthmother, the strangeness of this year's BB keeps us wondering still, human nature or game?? I guess it's a little of both, but it's a game that only those with a real 'mean streak' can play well and win.
Dana said it so well and I'm glad it ended up on the tv show " it came down to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' and that was exactly so. However, I'm still not convinced that Ali was the greater of two evils.

Maris

Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 08:31 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Its like Justin said, I would rather vote for the person that stabbed me in the front rather than the one who stabbed me in the back. I think either Jun or Ali deserved to win this game, they played the hardest. Whether you liked their game or not, I was happy to see that we didnt have an under the radar winner. Can you imagine how bad next year would be if Erika or Jack won this game. You would have 12 people coming into the house and trying to stay under the radar. We would be snoring on July 12th instead of August 12th.

I personally think Jun was more of a backstabber than Ali. At some point, everyone in that house tried to backstab someone. It is just that Ali and Jun did it better than anyone else. Jun setting up Danas eviction was positively masterful in making Dana the evil one for actually trying to stay in the game. She was brilliant.

Magicjet

Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 08:44 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Jun and Ali didn't look bad in my eyes. They looked like the winners.

Earthmother

Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 10:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Is wasn't a question as to whether they looked bad in our eyes..it's how they may have perceived themselves?

I guess my questions were;

If they admitted they went way overboard in the trashing department, would that mean that they felt as though they were not deserving of the win?

Are they fooling themselves by being so casual about their behavior because if they admitted what they did was wrong they would feel guilty?

Did they, like soldiers, dehumanize their victims in order to kill (evict) them without remorse, because they were evil and deserved it?

Personally I could really care who wins, but more how they win. I watch this show to examine human social behavior..and it never dissappoints me.(disgusts and angers, yes..lol)

Maris

Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 10:47 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I dont think anyone in BB would ever admit that they were not deserving of the win. I believe that anyone who applies for this game must have a big ego.

Looking at these two winners, I dont think they would ever feel guilty about their behavior and they would go with the end justifies the means.

I think you were closer to the mark on the idea that they dehumanized and demonized their victims. In fact if you think about it, it seems certainly to be a common behavior if you look at Danielle and Nicole from prior years. They both demonized their biggest threats (Roddy and Will). So I will go with that option.

Csnog

Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The people who are good at being the winner on game shows such as BB and Survivor look at it the same way. It's just business". Both Jun and Brian said the same thing.

The mob mentality comes into the game while others are still there. Most people would not do something if it was just themselves but put someone else into the scene and mob rules.

I also love to watch how a contestant achieves the end result and find it fascinating to examine them.

The one thing I don't understand is why they have to condemn and lie about the evicted HG's. There is no reason to do so. The person that learns that lesson will be the one that I respect.

We enjoyed watching Ken and Bunky because they respected each other even though Ken professed a dislike for Bunky's lifestyle. We watched as Ken talked, learned and understood a different lifestyle from being in the game.

I missed not having someone in the BB house learn from an experience this year.

Earthmother

Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 02:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I do agree Csnog I would love to see one of these contestants learn from previous experience, and play the game while having some dignity. I think that is why I question whether it is ignorance or some kind of personal defense when this kind of behavior occurs.

I think I just want to see the world with my rose-colored glasses. To watch such personal attacks for no good reason (at least that I can surmize) I want to believe it must be for some kind of survival and not because someone may just be really that unkind.

Boberg

Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 08:58 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
In my optomistic world..by some miracle...Jun and Ali will get to see themselves as they were on the live feeds..constant foul mouth language and bashing of ex houseguest and their families for no apparent game reason..once this miracle occurs then Jun and Ali will realize how horrible their behavior and language were and be truly sorry for those deeds and learn something from it that will improve themselves...

I have no problem with anything they did that was directly related to winning the game, no problem with the manipulating, the lying, or their game tactics (floating)...but I do have a real problem with their attitudes (esp. Ali) JMHO

Onlyhuman

Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 10:19 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I see that there are 5 different contributors to the personal attacks and negativity that has existed in the house for the past 3 seasons.

1)The "demonization" as a necessary tool to cope with the psychological stress the game places on the HGs. The "evict the hated" mentatlity prevails.

2) Strategic negativity to get the focus on others or to bond with people.

3) Some HGs who utter insults and denigrate others because it makes them feel better about themselves or because they find it humorous to make fun of others. This behavior appears malicious to others but not always to the HG.

4) There are HGs who just don't like each other, for whatever reason, and feel no need to hold back on the insults. Sometimes the conflict can be resolved later (Chiara and Amy) but it often isn't (Will & Kent).

5) HGs who get angry or frustrated can vent in negative or hostile manner. When calm, the HG may not feel the same or may regret the statements.

None of these factors is mutually exclusive. In one instance, the negativity a HG expresses can be strategic while a few minutes later the same HG can be venting in anger.

BTW, what I most dislike is that very few of these HGs are willing to look at their own behavior but choose to point fingers instead. It seems that their behavior is always strategic while others is always malicious.

Unfortunately, this year we saw lots of 1, 2, & 3, and some 4 & 5. It resulted in a very negative house in general.