The popular TV programme, Survivor, raises many interesting points about human behaviour.
Of course, none of us can fully assess or diagnose anyone without either their consent or the opportunity to examine them fully. But we can analyse what is portrayed on the screen, and the manner in which these people display themselves in the programme. At home, and in real life, they may be much nicer or nastier than they appear on the TV screen: that's not what‘s being discussed.
Advertisement
But they have consented to reveal themselves in a situation in which they have considerable choice over how they show themselves, and that conduct is in the public domain and open to discussion and interpretation.
"Reality TV" has become very popular recently. Why do people love these shows? It's actually not all that real, but by embracing it, maybe it shows a rejection of the even greater phoniness of other TV, which can be so annoyingly unreal. There are so many daffy programmes of Unreality TV, filled with angels with awful hairstyles, teenage witches, and supernatural excuses to avoid real-life plots.
It’s a form of psychodrama
The physical dangers are mainly simulated or suggested by the editing. For instance, we may see shots of sinister-looking spiders and snakes, but the contestants never seem to get bitten. There are some sly shots of crocodiles slithering about: but the whole bunch of them cheerfully plunges into the river soon after arriving there, without anyone getting eaten. What exactly was the proximity of the nearest crocodile to the contestants?
Much of what we see is not quite reality, but a pretty good simulation of it. The interactions are real, though the producers obviously choose where to point the camera, and what to edit in: and the participants usually choose carefully what they'll say or not say when the camera is around.
In Survivor, people know that they'll be reasonably safe - that the producers will try to ensure their basic safety: what they actually need to survive is the conflict of interest with the others. It’s not really about physical survival. They're supposed to get voted off, not carried off.
Selection of competitors What a Yuppie bunch these castaways usually are. They’re usually also named like the cast of a soap opera. The group and the teams are usually so carefully and artfully balanced, and so politically correct: a couple of black people, one male and one female; two old folks: one male, one female, often balanced between the teams. Then a bunch of Yuppies. There are far more postmen, shoe-salesmen, and factory-workers, in America, but they don't often seem to make it through the selection process. It seems that there needs to be at least a few hunks who'll look good with their shirts off - and at least some slim and reasonably pretty young women, who take care to bring their fetching swimsuits. Fat people need not apply.
How is Survivor relevant?
In our own lives, you could ask: we survive for what? And many people would find it hard to answer the question; they may be so busy in the day-to-day struggle, that they don't take the time to wonder what it's all for. Here, it's easier to answer: they strive to survive for a million dollars. Simple as that.
The programme is very relevant to office politics, and other aspects of our daily lives. We may be able to avoid the need to eat buggy figs, or to jump off cliffs, but we can't avoid the contest for dominance, and to influence others in our favour.
Now, if the survivors were to be selected by a jury, by an external judge, it'd be easier to compete. But here, it's much more complex. Firstly, you compete between groups and within groups; then later the two groups merge, and you must collaborate with your former enemies/rivals. You must try to persuade the others that it is in their interests (rather than yours) to vote for someone else (anyone but you).
Strategies to stay in the game Think carefully about how you might try to achieve that. I wonder that Darwin would have made of it? Why, would you suggest, should people vote someone off? Ideally, I suppose, you'd want to keep together as long as possible, a group of people good at caring for the group and at winning the challenges, which will enhance your chances of surviving. Then get rid of them at the end, with the same aim. You don't want to keep someone who is seen as notably untrustworthy, spiteful, backstabbing - the next back they stab could be yours. You don't want someone who is feeble and incompetent, who is of no use to your own survival.
Similarly, what reasons would you want to suggest to the others, to make them want to keep you around? I'm nice, helpful, useful, but no threat to you? Yes, I'm going to be really very useful to you in keeping you safe and surviving to the end of the game. I like you and I won't vote against you, and I'll help to protect you from the others, but when we get close to the end, I'll be a pushover, and you'll easily be able to get rid of me then, with a clear conscience. You'd want to convey such a message effectively and convincingly, but without saying it too directly, so as to be more credible.
If the attrition simply continued to the end, it'd be one type of process. But towards the end, you get voted on by the people you voted off! So, while you need to get rid of them earlier on, you'll try to leave no particular hard feelings they can use against you later. You need to avoid annoying the other people. So it requires an odd mix of cooperation and competition.
The earliest stages could be the most risky, because your team will have to vote somebody off, and you've had little time in which to earn their support: they'll be looking for a reason to choose someone to vote off, and reasonably insignificant things can sink you.
Who’s the leader? There are clear tensions. They need to be coherent, organized, as a group: in fact they need leadership, but none of them want to be led. Those who over-all, or in any specific situation, can see what is needed and have a relevant skill or knowledge, have a dilemma. Do they take the risk of offering their advice, or even criticising an unwise group decision (running the risk of unpopularity), or ignore this, and tolerate things being done badly, and so maintaining acceptance by the others?
The hierarchy of needs
The textbooks tell us that we're motivated to meet our needs, and in a fairly predictable order. Most basically, we need to breathe, and that pretty much takes precedence over everything else (without breathing, we achieve little else). Then we need food, water, and shelter from the elements, from the extremes of hot and cold. Psychologically, we need to feel safe, secure, and out of danger. Again, other needs can usually wait until these are met.
In this game, though, people have been selected for being highly competitive, and their competitive urges show up rather earlier. Then there are other psychological needs: to affiliate with others, and to feel like we belong, to get approval, support & recognition. Then still higher needs may be met: to be creative, find justice, whatever. In the show, at first, there's squabbling for dominance, and to secure fire, water, and shelter: they can mostly delay any need for artistic creativity .
Some of the stresses they face are obvious, others less so. For instance, to a substantial extent, they are not in control of their fate. They're in an unfamiliar and unpredictable place, facing competition from people they don't know, the organisers spring surprises on them, (some deliberately unpleasant, like having to eat something disgusting) and their success in the competition depends on other people, who can be hard to influence.
Bookmark with:
What are social bookmarks?