The Traitors: showing how easily people can be led

[pattihews]

Possibly a bit lowbrow for the thinking women of FWR, but is anyone else watching The Traitors? I've just finished watching episode 2.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0db9c0q/the-traitors-series-1-episode-1

I don't usually watch this sort of thing, but I got drawn into it last night. It's interesting to see how easily people can be manipulated: how with a couple of whispered comments someone can be scapegoated and no one sees it happening or calls foul.

A useful reminder of how easily swayed people can be. How so many think they're making independent decisions when, as one of the contestants said tonight, it's herd mentality. We often ask how gender ideology got a hold and how and why people unquestioningly go along with it and this shows how it happens.

I have no idea on whether Amanda is GC or not.

But she is playing the game so well. Without being too stereotype-y, as an older (but not elder) woman, who oozes kindness and empathy but is actually pin-sharp, who knows her own mind and is quite ruthless....

She would fit right in here!

The first series of Big Brother was like this - it had more of an experimental feel rather than being a route to get famous. Fascinating.

Loving it. I agree with comments upthread about othering being a reason for early boots.
I desperately want to see the Australian version!

I might need to watch this after this thread. If you want truly a terrifying experiment watch Derren Brown's The Push. He starts off by saying he can persuade most people to commit murder under the right circumstances, and the results are terrifying.

I comment in the tv thread but yes there is a lot of stuff going on.

They turned on the first lady as one jf the traitors connected that she didn't raise her glass to say cheers at one point.

They all leapt in this.

But she pointed out she couldn't raise her glass as it was placed in front of her missing limb.

At the table scene,where they all stood up until their names were called, could meryrl have been overlooked as you literally could overlook up when looking around the table at those still standing?

The people in there seem to forget that traitors were picked at random.

It's a great show but does show herd mentality (and it's easier to vote with the crowd and then be upset if it avoids putting any attention on yourself) and assuming older women like Andrea can't be a traitor as they are older?

They are also all more focussed on being liked and considered honest than winning (bar the traitors) which is strange as they auditioned for this show! But niceness is valued more highly for sone than being seen as clever/strategic-maybe that's more the women. I can't imagine one of the middle aged men thinks that way.

My thoughts exactly! But of course, it means that any second series will be pants. Series 1 of BB, they all went in not knowing how many people were watching them, or even if anyone was watching at all. Second series onwards, they knew they'd be pored over and were looking to launch media careers - you got very different people putting themselves up for it. And they stopped having psychologists take us through the footage to show us examples of strategy.

I think a second series of Traitors would suffer the same fate - less psychology experiment, more fameseekers and 'performances'.

Alongside the contestants sheeplike qualities (were they selected for that the way Derren Brown finds his subjects?) I'm intrigued by their sheer lack of ability to comprehend that someone reacting differently to them (being quiet, say, when they would be chatty) does not indicate that that person is feeling guilty / lying / a traitor. Anything different to themselves, they see as good reason to suspect that person. They jump upon it. It's as if they live in such little, homogenous bubbles that they cannot imagine any other way to live. And when they do meet people from 'outside' they quickly reach for their stereotypes (Andrea is a sweet little old lady, for example). Again, this could be qualities that got them selected for the show. (And the show, of course, is edited to project the narrative that the producers want us to see.)

I might need to watch this now. I saw the trailers and thought it seemed manipulative and exploitative and I'd find it incredibly depressing. You've peaked my interest though ..

I’ve been watching this and find it fascinating.
I agree about the stereotypes.
I think Amanda is doing so well because in general, people expect a woman of a certain age especially if she has a mother, to behave a certain way. They certainly don’t expect her to lie. The same with Andrea.
It does show how the majority of people can be persuaded to believe most things. Although to be fair they do have to vote someone out.

Wilf fell at the final stage.
He got defensive/aggressive just when they were finally voting, he seemed to lose it and Amanda finally understood then he got voted off.
Suddenly, he realises he has to salvage his reputation and says he is so happy that the others got the money! That he liked them so much that he wanted them with him at the end! Sneaky to the end!

Interesting that Hannah spotted the ultimatum ('If you vote me out I can't speak to you again') and realised its significance. And Aaron latched onto Kieran's 'parting gift'. I really thought Wilf would get away with it.

I haven't read the whole thread - intentionally, in case of spoilers - as I only watched ep 1 on the night before last and ep 2 last night. For once here, I don't feel nervous that I haven't read the thread.

The psychology is indeed very interesting. I hadn't noticed how Dr Amos walking Andrea up to poll position right at the start was a)patronising & seemingly against her will and b)it constitued 'humblebragging', which it did.

Being only a few years younger than Andrea I am noticing the ageism too. And one thing that hit me in ep 2 was Imran (aged 23 and the youngest person in the world to hold a PhD in his specialism, as he keeps telling us) saying how people of his generation look for evidence and don't go on gut feelings.

Really, Imran? Have you seen and read any gender identity bollocks? Being led by the generation above him, sure, but being uncritically accepted by far too many of his generation.

I'll not be here again till I've caught up with the final episode.

I think what is shows is that groupthink is integral to survival. Our willingness to cluster and ‘be led’ ensures the future of the community.

working together gets results.

outliers threaten the ‘group’

in traitors there was little to no advantage to going alone once votes started to be cast. It was best to follow the lead.

it is a good trait if good people are in charge, not so good if the wrong people are in charge.

as we all know!

When Wilf was losing at the end, out came the threats and ultimatums and some incredibly vicious DARVOing.

Puts you in mind of a certain group.

I think Wilf lost the plot at the end, and his threats and ultimatums were a result of being in a high intensity environment where from the start he'd led a double existence.

Let's not forget how everyone changed - Amos was shocked and commented on how everyone was normal when he'd last seen them, but after only four days there was paranoia and distrust, and the beginnings of meltdown with a number of the contestants.

I feel the happiness at the others winning was genuine, and that the relief he felt at it all being over was palpable. To have all that pressure lifted at last must have been such a massive relief, even if he didn't win.

Claudia felt like just exactly the right person to host this.

I can't imagine, say, Stacey Dooley or Paddy McGuinness. There was something about Claudia that felt real.

Of course. Some people are more suggestable than others. They would have been selected carefully

Look at how Paul Mckenna operates. He would never select me as im more cynical and closed minded than others

I mean derren brown

I've played a lot of traitor games like werewolf/mafia which is what this basically is, without the challenges (particularly cruel to add in teambuilding though this is reflected in the game if you play with close friends).

There may be some people in there who were genuinely naive but when you are playing these games everything is an act - even if you are innocent. It is not just about getting rid of the traitors. You also need to not be voted out or murdered. This means setting up others - anyone at all - to secure your survival as long as possible.

Thinking about it as an act of herd mentality doesn't quite work - these people are looking to sieze on an opportunity and are relieved when the finger isn't pointed at them. So much more likely to vote with the group even if it is cruel.

You are less likely to put your head above the parapet and call out discrimination or unfair behaviour.

They picked on black and minorities - yes that is probably realistic in the initial days when they haven't formed relationships. Would work if you had minority white in there, too.

So as a thought experiment on human behaviour it is not totally valid, doesn't stop it being fascinating as a game of course! I loved it.

With regard to gender ideology capture - I think it is more relevant than other kinds of political or societal issue to compare it with, due to the risk involved in coming out against it. It might simulate the herd mentality, virtual signalling and people wanting a quiet life and not to be singled out by having their own critical thoughts (or expressing them, who knows what they really think).