The Traitors is both racist & ageist?

[TrademarkBrooklynBeckham]

I’ve been saying this for some time, and now the Times has analyzed the data.

Are The Traitors players prejudiced? Here’s what the data says:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/20eccb12-a919-4d59-8ce5-1e9925f9e948?shareToken=3e4f0566057b480a152802f21f97c26c

Spoiler alert - all white winners and just one non white person in the finals of the UK general traitors show.

YABU - It’s an evidence based show. Nothing to see here.
YANBU - The players are displaying unconscious bias against race, sex & age

Plus, they've got to murder or banish somebody! It doesn't have to be a sign of bias.

I think if anything it disadvantages contestants most markedly based on age. There's not a single player left over the age of 42. And that task last night was far too intense for, say, a healthy 70+ year old - had there been any remaining. A lot of the tasks are quite physically demanding.

I think unconscious bias is present in all reality shows - as it is in real life. What makes Traitors interesting is that we see how our perceptions of others influence our actions towards them. Too quiet/ reserved? Traitor. Too loud/ outgoing? Traitor. It's a master class in the human species being completely unable to solely trust their instincts without evidence. It's absolutely all about unconscious bias, not just on the basis of protected characteristics though. We make our minds up about other people within seconds of meeting them and then fall victim to confirmation bias.

It's fascinating as a study of human flaws.

What I meant was that I don’t agree that it’s ageism, it’s just strategy.

Not at all, just a trend I’d noticed and it’s shocking when asked why they are voted it’s - I’m trusting my gut - well your guy is racist.

They’re not in the least bit curious as to why it’s a minority group first.

Certainly voting out Ross, Netty and Judy early doors did feel like racism. But then minority groups make up almost half of the final 7.

We really can't know about Ross; he was overcompensating so badly for knowing that other person, I think he sealed his own doom.

Which is fair now they’ve been in there a while and have built trust and camaraderie etc.

But it’s now very ageist!

I think more education is the key to tackling unconscious bias. I did once stumble across a programme about a devout Jewish woman's daily life, which was really interesting. More stuff like that on how different groups of people tend to express themselves, their culture, fashions etc. Can be done really well via drama and comedy - Shameless, Desmonds etc

True, but I think they need half the people to be over 45 to start with so it's less a bunch of 35 year old men and four older people. They probably don't get that many older people applying though.

So what would be the solution exactly, to too many white people winning the show?

No white people allowed to go on the show?

Handicaps for white players only?

You're only allowed to eliminate white people?

All this focus on skin colour being the main reason any person fails/succeeds at anything is terrible for societal cohesion. White people are a minority in this globalist world and the craziness is getting ridiculous.

I wonder if there is similar hand wringing around south african game shows about too many black people winning.

It's not ageist the older people were banished for reasons other than their age.

This type of post drives me nuts. Its a game. The winners don't go through on either age or color, they are successful because of the tactics they use to play the game. I very much doubt that the contestants think to themselves oh I will vote for them as they are older than me or a different color! Why does it always have to resort to this?

I don’t think you understand what unconscious racism or ageism is. Of course the contestants aren’t thinking "I will vote for them because they’re older than me or a different colour"! No-one is suggesting that’s what happens. The point is that people (maybe understandably) tend to identify more with those who share their own characteristics.

It’s not tactics at the beginning. They don’t consciously think it, I’m sure they’d be horrified. If it’s happening it’s unconscious.

I take it you’ve never watched the show. There’s no tactics involved, it’s:
’I don’t trust him’
‘gut feeling’
‘she’s acting traitorous’.

Is this why Netty voted for Judy?

I repeat that if you go into a game called Traitors and turn your head when the host says 'Traitors' people might think you are a Traitor.

If you run up to a contestant and mount them in the first few seconds, you will draw attention to yourself.

If you tell people what your plan for the person that mounted you was, people will see you as having a pre-determined plan.

If the others hadn't voted for them it would have looked suspicious.

Any unconscious bias is in the selection not in the people trying to work out who is lying.

In this show the traitors tend to leave the weaker players to last because they are not a threat to the traitors and they are not so obviously faithful that they get a lot of support from others.

So you could argue that if they left minorities to last then it would be racist because they are viewing them as weak and unpopular. Conversely by getting them out early you could say they are seeing them as the strongest and most popular players.

Personally I think people should stop completely overthinking these things. If you look hard enough you can find 'proof' of anything.

Ross was my fave ever, he looked like he was in a constant state of complete disbelief. His friendship with Netty was what did him in though, not his race.

But how do we know it's unconscious bias or they are been voted for for specific reasons.
Just for example was voted off for acting suspiciously and was voted for by both white and people of colour, mixed race.
Ross was voted off because the Netty thing made him look suspicious in some people's eyes.
Jade is under suspicion and always has been as she looked awkward and uncomfortable at the first round table and a few maintain that.
Fiona was voted off because she went full on for Rachel and Rachel played the game
Harriet got herself voted off by going all guns blazing and being rude at breakfast
None of these people of colour or older people were voted off for no reason.
Some will say they are trusting their gut because they are jumping in the bandwagon of voting for someone to be tactical

Is this why Netty voted for Judy?

I don’t think you understand the words "tend to", either. No-one is saying it happens with every player in every vote.

You're viewing it as though it’s an accusation of moral failure, rather than an observation of human nature.

Yes, as I said 'I don't disagree with the unconscious bias thing in general and in The Traitors'.

Because the article shows high levels of unconscious bias in first few banishments.

Statistics....

Who was the second banishment again?

It's not 100% of the reason for any one contestant or vote, but it's a pattern discernable across all the series as the numbers mount up.

Personally I do find that the awareness of my likely bias helps me do it less. And I consciously think now, if I have a gut feeling that someone is a bit meh, especially at work, whatever their background, I do a little inner test - what if they just feel different from me? How can I review their behaviour in the most positive light I can? If theres something they do or say that I really cannot get past, that quickly becomes apparent.

And I sometimes think what's the worst that can happen if I over compensate on typically minoritised qualities? I had 2 candidates once for a senior role in my team, they were both appointable, I thought the older white guy was the more credible to me, other members of my team thought the same as me, some others preferred the younger black woman. It was a clear decision to be made. I thought if I go with the woman and she's not quite as good as the guy would have been - so what? I was sure she'd do a good job, she was over the threshold. What's the worst that could have happened? With her, we bring a different voice and set of experiences into our senior team, we provide a greater diversity of role models, yet perhaps some parts of the role are technically not done to as high standard as they would be with the other dude. That's not a bad outcome so let's go with that. Appointing the guy would have meant I lost those other benefits. Who's to say what brings greater success to the team ultimately. Plenty of posh mediocre white people have done jobs that they're not the best candidates for and the world hasn't ended.

In a different thread the suggestion was to not allow POC to be kicked out at all.

We all surely know by now that it’s not just straightforward people working out who is lying from the ‘evidence’. It’s all about who has social capital and who is listening to and believing who. Jazatha Christie for instance had some things right but nobody would listen to him because he didn’t have the social respect. It’s not a massive leap to think that some of these decisions are made with unconscious bias.