Getting rid of Keeva was not part of her plan to win, I'm sure I never said that. Keeva was someone John could open up to and Josie couldn't have that. Had John started opening up / talking in sentences to say Corin then Josie would have seen Corin off as well.
The producers did help Josie to win but it was her game plan that got her all the way to the end, not the producers. She was never up for eviction, that couldn't be planned by producers. That was because of her gameplan. Getting the males onside was step one, it's the guys that usually block vote the women up for eviction early on. Making them all her 'usbands and doing their laundry worked a charm, they did not nominate her, she was never up for eviction. That can't be explained as the producers wanted her to win. And the producers gave equal help to Dave, they never showed Dave's nasties as they never showed Josie in bed most of the time. So I'm not convinced it was their plan all along for Josie to win.
Not nominating the person perceived as popular with voters is typical BB behaviour. You do not nominate someone you perceive to be the most popular with the public because you don't want to be up against them. Josie got a lot of positive feedback on the way in, then Mario wrote on that ball that she was the most popular (can't remember what exactly he wrote now) and that reinforced what the others already thought.
One of my favourite BB's is Australia BB and one year there were 2 contestants who were perceived by the others as hugely popular and were not nominated for eviction till very very late in the game. Both were evicted as soon as they were up.
Josie did have a plan, she didn't plan for John to be there of course how could she.
It was when Keeva told her that John was rich that John became the "target of her "affection"" and I think it was the fact that John had told this to Keeva and not her was the catalyst for her war on Keeva. It also did help to convince people that she was in love with John a lot of people thought it was down to her being jealous in a romantic way. I thought it more down to Josie feeling like she was losing control of John. How dare he share something with Keeva and not her. He had to be totally dependent on her.
No no no Vesna I know it is picky and fastidious but facts facts facts facts . John was in bed with Josie and Keeva and the conversation turned to money . It struck me odd how intently Keeva questioned John on his finances asking him if he was a millionaire . He denied this but intimated maybe in assets. Josie did not appear as animated about this fact as Keeva did. They found out about the money at the same time.
Just a small note which only occurred to me but has probably been mentioned on the thread before. But it fits in with the great analysis going on at the moment!
When Josie nominated JJ Bird in face to face.
I took it at face value, at the time, thinking, ah Josie you silly thing. But now I realise that it was probably the vote she wanted to do all along as she was losing control of John to JJ.
Sorry for butting in.
As you were:)
Surprisingly it always struck me odd how little time John and JJ spent together despite the bromance. Apart from the occasions they were thrown together ie: the races they were blah friends John appeared to spend more time under the duvet with Josie or chatting til the early hours with Daveo. Sorry that's just the way I saw it. For example separation day, this was the perfect opportunity for John and JJ to spend quality time together, despite this John spent most of that day staring through windows at Josie or whispering to her around doors.
Don't misunderstand me I do think they are friends and like each other and perhaps they have become better friends since the end of BB , however, it wasn't that evident during BB to me.
Surprisingly it always struck me odd how little time John and JJ spent together despite the bromance. Apart from the occasions they were thrown together ie: the races they were blah friends John appeared to spend more time under the duvet with Josie or chatting til the early hours with Daveo. Sorry that's just the way I saw it. For example separation day, this was the perfect opportunity for John and JJ to spend quality time together, despite this John spent most of that day staring through windows at Josie or whispering to her around doors.
Don't misunderstand me I do think they are friends and like each other and perhaps they have become better friends since the end of BB , however, it wasn't that evident during BB to me.
Hi Pickles I always had the impression that JJ didn't want to ally himself too strongly with John to the detriment of getting to know the other HMs and wondered if perhaps it was because he knew that John was causing mixed feelings on the outside, with his temper/arguing etc and JJ didn't want to get caught up in the crossfire of any adversity towards John rubbing off on him. I do recall quite a few times when they were talking for long periods (John and JJ) in the outside shower whilst the others were doing group activities in the living-room.
My abiding 2 memories of JJ were 1. when he worked on John to wear the crab suit, being the mature adult and wearing his own silly outfit, I think he sort of shamed John into changing his mind rather than anybody else there, who used a different tack unsuccessfully. 2. when Nathan had been into the house and John was talking about the situation, JJ again was mature enough to say that he too would have been angry in Nathan's shoes and could see where he was coming from. He didn't automatically agree with John like some others did.
Also, looking back into my foggy memory of two years ago , I don't recall JJ mixing much with Josie either - I get the feeling now that the didn't really bond or even like each other much. That could, however, be recent and old events mixing up in my head, it's a long time ago lol.
I agree they liked each other were similar ages and had a little in common ( not a lot but a little) I think JJ did give him good advice in BB too. However, the original post I replied to intimated that Josie was somehow afraid that John was getting too pally with JJ and she would somehow lose some influence over him. I really don't think it was ever an issue John preferred her company I really cannot think of an instance when he chose to spend time with JJ rather than Josie. In fact the opposite can be argued, remember the Dickens task when JJ and Josie were paired up to steal the trinkets. John even followed them into the hut to stop them being alone together.
So sorry Ali, forgot to quote this is a reply to your post xxxx
I agree they liked each other were similar ages and had a little in common ( not a lot but a little) I think JJ did give him good advice in BB too. However, the original post I replied to intimated that Josie was somehow afraid that John was getting too pally with JJ and she would somehow lose some influence over him. I really don't think it was ever an issue John preferred her company I really cannot think of an instance when he chose to spend time with JJ rather than Josie. In fact the opposite can be argued, remember the Dickens task when JJ and Josie were paired up to steal the trinkets. John even followed them into the hut to stop them being alone together.
So sorry Ali, forgot to quote this is a reply to your post xxxx
lol no worries
I wasn't sure he was worried about them being alone together; I remember that he was determined to find out if they were on a task, and got the impression he was jealous because they were and he wasn't included. He nagged and nagged at them, unconcerned that it could ruin the task.
Do you think then, in the words of Lady Gaga, she was born this way?
Im with Nosnikrapl on this one , i think and i believe that no one is born with any particular nature or personality, its what happens to us along the way that shapes and defines us. Im not using this as a defence for bad behaviour but i think it just is part of the explanation. I can see that when Josie, first starting exhibiting unacceptable behaviour patterns, her size and power may have prevented or discouraged her peers or even more authoritarian figures from crossing her and that would then have furthur entrenched the habits but i do believe her childhood and in particular her relationship with her mother contributed massively to her developing personality and attitudes.
Robert Winston on Child of Our Time explored the whole nature vs nuture. This was the programme that took children born at the millenium & we saw them for the first few years of their lives. Not sure if it is going to continue or BBC have pulled the plug.
Bascially he did a test when they were toddlers which very clearly showed those with extrovert personalities & those who were more introverted. The genetic link here was clear He then did further tests over the years & we also saw the lives unfold of each of the children. Ranging from stable comfortable middle class families, family breakup, quite severe family dysfunction.
He was able to demonstrate that what happens to a child particularly in the early years has a profound impact on the personalities of the child. You had a child who was quite high on the introvert scale but was brought up in a secure nuturing family unit, encouraged etc. who had a very well developed sense of self, his esteem was strong. This meant that whilst he was naturally shy he was comfortable & able to fit in & express himself. Compare with another child who was naturally an extrovert but had a troubled unbringing his sense of self was poor. The bubbly confident toddler was lost & his future looked very uncertain.
Excellent programme as it was able to show quite ably why if you want to 'save' a child you need to intervene quite early.
Robert Winston on Child of Our Time explored the whole nature vs nuture. This was the programme that took children born at the millenium & we saw them for the first few years of their lives. Not sure if it is going to continue or BBC have pulled the plug.
This programme was a follow-on from a documentary called '7 up' which began in 1964. Focusing more on socio-economic issues, the programme has followed a group of individuals from the age of 7, catching up with them every 7 years. They will be 56 this year and the new episode is aired some time next month.
I find the 'nature-nurture' debate highly fascinating, especially in the light of advances in genetics, which seem to demonstrate that a large proportion of our personality traits (such as 'addictive' behaviour) are determined by our genes. And yet part of the human condition is the capacity to change, so there is no magic formula.
I think nature is more important than nurture. This is why we have siblings who experienced almost exactly the same upbringing and life story but behave completely differently. My sister was born with a different dial completely to the rest of us. BORN with it. I have no memory of her where she wasn't manipulating everything and everyone around her for her own benefit. She has led, in many ways, a charmed life. There have been no traumas on which she can foist the blame for being the way that she is.
It's comforting, I know, to believe that there's a quantifiable reason for everything. Sadly, there is not.
No no no Vesna I know it is picky and fastidious but facts facts facts facts . John was in bed with Josie and Keeva and the conversation turned to money . It struck me odd how intently Keeva questioned John on his finances asking him if he was a millionaire . He denied this but intimated maybe in assets. Josie did not appear as animated about this fact as Keeva did. They found out about the money at the same time.
No No NO Pickles. I'm not talking about that time, he had told Keeva before Josie. Before this he told Keeva.
Robert Winston on Child of Our Time explored the whole nature vs nuture. This was the programme that took children born at the millenium & we saw them for the first few years of their lives. Not sure if it is going to continue or BBC have pulled the plug.
Bascially he did a test when they were toddlers which very clearly showed those with extrovert personalities & those who were more introverted. The genetic link here was clear He then did further tests over the years & we also saw the lives unfold of each of the children. Ranging from stable comfortable middle class families, family breakup, quite severe family dysfunction.
He was able to demonstrate that what happens to a child particularly in the early years has a profound impact on the personalities of the child. You had a child who was quite high on the introvert scale but was brought up in a secure nuturing family unit, encouraged etc. who had a very well developed sense of self, his esteem was strong. This meant that whilst he was naturally shy he was comfortable & able to fit in & express himself. Compare with another child who was naturally an extrovert but had a troubled unbringing his sense of self was poor. The bubbly confident toddler was lost & his future looked very uncertain.
Excellent programme as it was able to show quite ably why if you want to 'save' a child you need to intervene quite early.
I have had huge changes in my family makeup and my circumstances, yet I'm still the same (basically) as I was when I was a toddler. My sister is totally utterly different, couldn't be more different if we tried. It has to do more with intellect than anything else. IMO.
No no no Vesna I know it is picky and fastidious but facts facts facts facts . John was in bed with Josie and Keeva and the conversation turned to money . It struck me odd how intently Keeva questioned John on his finances asking him if he was a millionaire . He denied this but intimated maybe in assets. Josie did not appear as animated about this fact as Keeva did. They found out about the money at the same time.
no...I thought he had told Josie days before this......
we have been through this before.......and dont seem to get any resolution.......
Josie knew fairly early on that John had money ...from his clothes cosmetics etc......and im sure they had spoken about it as well......about his house, and that his dad had built him his own apartment etc, about his mums horses etc....
and im sure they had talked about his sports car and how he loved to take his mum out for a drive etc....
maybe they didnt speak of exact sums...but it was easy to work out that john had money....
he had enough to buy his own tickets at the o2 for the michael jackson gig...and to pay to come over....
all of these convos were before the one with josie and keeva...
No No NO Pickles. I'm not talking about that time, he had told Keeva before Josie. Before this he told Keeva.
Sounds like a rehash of the UP Series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series
I have had huge changes in my family makeup and my circumstances, yet I'm still the same (basically) as I was when I was a toddler. My sister is totally utterly different, couldn't be more different if we tried. It has to do more with intellect than anything else. IMO.
Two totally seperate series. 7UP has been running since 1964 & is still ongoing. Originally a Granda production & now on Channel 4.
You obviously know better than Lord Winston. Personally I'll take my lead from a internally recognised expert in this field!!
This programme was a follow-on from a documentary called '7 up' which began in 1964. Focusing more on socio-economic issues, the programme has followed a group of individuals from the age of 7, catching up with them every 7 years. They will be 56 this year and the new episode is aired some time next month.
I find the 'nature-nurture' debate highly fascinating, especially in the light of advances in genetics, which seem to demonstrate that a large proportion of our personality traits (such as 'addictive' behaviour) are determined by our genes. And yet part of the human condition is the capacity to change, so there is no magic formula.
Nature means that you are pre-dispositioned to be, act, suffer illness but it is the nuture that you have along the way that determines if or how much these traits actually impact. Eg: pre-disposition to type 2 diabetes. If you have a healthy diet during your life you delay the onset until late in life. On the other hand if you have a sugar rich diet & are significantly overweight the onset can be very early in adulthood.
Nature means that you are pre-dispositioned to be, act, suffer illness but it is the nuture that you have along the way that determines if or how much these traits actually impact. Eg: pre-disposition to type 2 diabetes. If you have a healthy diet during your life you delay the onset until late in life. On the other hand if you have a sugar rich diet & are significantly overweight the onset can be very early in adulthood.
However, if you are born without empathy; no matter how well you're nurtured, cared for and taught right from wrong - you still won't have empathy.
Nature means that you are pre-dispositioned to be, act, suffer illness but it is the nuture that you have along the way that determines if or how much these traits actually impact. Eg: pre-disposition to type 2 diabetes. If you have a healthy diet during your life you delay the onset until late in life. On the other hand if you have a sugar rich diet & are significantly overweight the onset can be very early in adulthood.
Exactly. 'Nature' means that a characertistic is inborn (i.e. bestowed by nature). What is up for debate is the extent to which environmental factors may encourage or inhibit the development of that characteristic. With physical conditions such as diabetes type 2, the relationship between 'nature' and 'nurture' is subject to empirical invesigation, and it is relatively easy to eliminiate the possiblity of other influences.
With 'psychological' or personality traits, it is much more difficult to isolate a 'condition' and assess how far 'nurture' has an influence. Hence it's particulalry fascinating when science makes claims to have identified a gene which pre-determines, for example, a psychopathic personality. You may say that the gene only dictates a predisposition, but others may disagree.
This programme was a follow-on from a documentary called '7 up' which began in 1964. Focusing more on socio-economic issues, the programme has followed a group of individuals from the age of 7, catching up with them every 7 years. They will be 56 this year and the new episode is aired some time next month.
I find the 'nature-nurture' debate highly fascinating, especially in the light of advances in genetics, which seem to demonstrate that a large proportion of our personality traits (such as 'addictive' behaviour) are determined by our genes. And yet part of the human condition is the capacity to change, so there is no magic formula.
I agree..ive always thought that both nature and nurture are important...
Exactly. 'Nature' means that a characertistic is inborn (i.e. bestowed by nature). What is up for debate is the extent to which environmental factors may encourage or inhibit the development of that characteristic. With physical conditions such as diabetes type 2, the relationship between 'nature' and 'nurture' is subject to empirical invesigation, and it is relatively easy to eliminiate the possiblity of other influences.
With 'psychological' or personality traits, it is much more difficult to isolate a 'condition' and assess how far 'nurture' has an influence. Hence it's particulalry fascinating when science makes claims to have identified a gene which pre-determines, for example, a psychopathic personality. You may say that the gene only dictates a predisposition, but others may disagree.
nature vs nurture is in a way similar to the idea or question about whether our lives can be said to be pre ordained, and subject to fate....or whether they are just subject to our free will and free choices?
I would always want to have an assumption that to a certain extent, everyone does have free will and the right to make a free choice about most aspects of their life.......and in the case of Josie the ablity to change her situation and aspects of her personality....
I think its dangerous to condemn a child to a certain lifestyle and make assumptions about what kind of person they will become before they even start school.....which is what could happen if we go down the route of labelling a gene for being a psychopath....or even for things like autism.....which does now look as if it has some highly genetic factors with this defective mirror gene or whatever.....
As regards things like this so called narcassist streak.....does how acceptable this is, change depending on your background? or even your nationality? Surely someone like Paris Hilton has been a narcassist all her life.....yet she has been encouraged to be as she is...not criticised?
or is it mainly gender based...a woman should have empathy...so if she doesnt display that much that makes her unnatural?
for instance In BB11, I didnt think Ben displayed much empathy...he had lovely manners...and knew how to say the right thing...but he wasnt a very sympathetic kind of person....
However, if you are born without empathy; no matter how well you're nurtured, cared for and taught right from wrong - you still won't have empathy.
I think this whole discussion has gone full circle. It started about whether Josie was' damaged' or whether she 'just is'.
I agree individuals who are born with a disorder can have as part of that no empathy. But that by any other name is being damaged. My brother was born with a learning disability - he is damaged. His nuture has been said by professionals over the years to have led to his development being greater than may otherwise have been the case.
Do we think Josie was was born damaged or have her life experiences led to her damage? Personally my view is that it is the nuture that has led to her unhealthy narcissism.
Hi Pickles I always had the impression that JJ didn't want to ally himself too strongly with John to the detriment of getting to know the other HMs and wondered if perhaps it was because he knew that John was causing mixed feelings on the outside, with his temper/arguing etc and JJ didn't want to get caught up in the crossfire of any adversity towards John rubbing off on him. I do recall quite a few times when they were talking for long periods (John and JJ) in the outside shower whilst the others were doing group activities in the living-room.
My abiding 2 memories of JJ were 1. when he worked on John to wear the crab suit, being the mature adult and wearing his own silly outfit, I think he sort of shamed John into changing his mind rather than anybody else there, who used a different tack unsuccessfully. 2. when Nathan had been into the house and John was talking about the situation, JJ again was mature enough to say that he too would have been angry in Nathan's shoes and could see where he was coming from. He didn't automatically agree with John like some others did.
Also, looking back into my foggy memory of two years ago , I don't recall JJ mixing much with Josie either - I get the feeling now that the didn't really bond or even like each other much. That could, however, be recent and old events mixing up in my head, it's a long time ago lol.[/QUOTE]
strangely enough...I also got that impression.....JJ didnt seem particularly close to Josie, which was another reason I found it extremely odd that he moved in with them both?
But then again...I always thought that JJ was quite guarded and I never got a very clear idea of his personality at all....He had had a massive brush with fame, via his friendship with JLS...and I think he already knew how to keep his own counsel....
An intersting post augusta. You raise lots of different issues, and bless you for keeping us on topic, or at least BB-related!
What I would say is that the BB producers do seem to seek out HMs with obvious personality traits, so there is a disproportionate number of identifiable 'types' in the House in any one series. There's usually a narcissist, a psychopath, an exhibitionist etc,. And conditions are such that a pre-existing tendency to particular behaviour will be exaggerated.
I like your point about certain traits being more acceptable when attached to gender or class, and I100% agree!
Do we think Josie was was born damaged or have her life experiences led to her damage? Personally my view is that it is the nuture that has led to her unhealthy narcissism.
Well, we don't know the answer to this. It seems likley that the 'nurture' has had an effect but we don't know, nor can we.
I think this whole discussion has gone full circle. It started about whether Josie was' damaged' or whether she 'just is'.
I agree individuals who are born with a disorder can have as part of that no empathy. But that by any other name is being damaged. My brother was born with a learning disability - he is damaged. His nuture has been said by professionals over the years to have led to his development being greater than may otherwise have been the case.
Do we think Josie was was born damaged or have her life experiences led to her damage? Personally my view is that it is the nuture that has led to her unhealthy narcissism.
I could start to get a bit sarcastic here......cos I have no idea in reality of the truth of it.....:rolleyes:
my gut feeling is that it is the lack of nurture and care in her life that have led to some of her problems and issues..
but I could do a massive jeremy kyle style expose...and ask about her genetic background and relatives.... and wonder if there are any defective genes in her background?
I do know a case of a young man who died of bulimia and alcoholism - he was adopted at a very young age by an affluent, educated family who cared for him as one of their own. He had no contact with his birth family at all, and the nurture he received was of the very best, in terms of love, guidance and support.
Of course, he always lived with the knowledge that he was adopted, although he knew no personal details about his parents.
It came to light after his death that his father had also been an alcholic and a bulimic, and had also died young. Coincidence or genetically determined?
I could start to get a bit sarcastic here......cos I have no idea in reality of the truth of it.....:rolleyes:
my gut feeling is that it is the lack of nurture and care in her life that have led to some of her problems and issues..
but I could do a massive jeremy kyle style expose...and ask about her genetic background and relatives.... and wonder if there are any defective genes in her background?
I realise that we don't know where her damage originates from but for me there is damage which manifests itself in her unhealthy narcissism. I don't excuse her behaviour by seeing her as damaged likewise I don't badge her with it to do her unduly down. It's about putting some understanding to what we saw on BB & subsequently. Josie put herself up to scrutiny by going on BB & continues to play out every aspect of her life via media. Is this healthy - no but it is her choice.
I realise that we don't know where her damage originates from but for me there is damage which manifests itself in her unhealthy narcissism. I don't excuse her behaviour by seeing her as damaged likewise I don't badge her with it to do her unduly down. It's about putting some understanding to what we saw on BB & subsequently. Josie put herself up to scrutiny by going on BB & continues to play out every aspect of her life via media. Is this healthy - no but it is her choice.
I understand what you are saying, but you could say it was not healthy for her to go on BB in the first place. Indeed, is it healthy for anybody? Some would say not.
some would take it further and say that watching BB or getting involved in the discussion on threads like this is equally unhealthy.
My view is that it's largely up to the individual, as we do live in a 'free country'. Josie has a right to live her life as she sees fit, as do we all. We might find fault with her behaviour, and label her a narcissist, but our posts pointing this out are in themselves subject to scrutiny. We are each responsible for our own behaviour. What is 'healthy' in relation to BB (and to life in the media) is a subjective judgment.
Fair point, I have two brothers, one older one younger, I'm also the only girl (duh); we are all very different - I'm a loner but not an introvert, my older brother is an introvert and my younger brother is a social animal. However, they both have long-term partners (each over 15 years) and I don't. We are all very different and yet spring from the same loins so to speak (although one did attend boarding school, that changed him forever - not the school, but being sent).
We had a very happy upbringing all in all, albeit unusual living abroad, and our parents are still happy together after 50+ years - and yet neither of those brothers wants kids or wants to get married.
I do realise one thing that we all have in common, for a long time we all felt pressure from our pushy Dad and were under-achievers I think partly because of our reaction to this. Only when my younger brother left the country did he become successful and his own person.
Eek that could become one long rant, you've just given me a really good idea for my next topic on my blog!
we are 6 sisters and 1 brother,and his wife became a seven sister. I never felt the need for outside friendship. I have my sisters. .. my brother wife is a diamond.
some would take it further and say that watching BB or getting involved in the discussion on threads like this is equally unhealthy.
My view is that it's largely up to the individual, as we do live in a 'free country'. Josie has a right to live her life as she sees fit, as do we all. We might find fault with her behaviour, and label her a narcissist, but our posts pointing this out are in themselves subject to scrutiny. We are each responsible for our own behaviour. What is 'healthy' in relation to BB (and to life in the media) is a subjective judgment.
Thank you. I wanted to make this post, but I'm not articulate
enough.
Comments
No no no Vesna I know it is picky and fastidious but facts facts facts facts . John was in bed with Josie and Keeva and the conversation turned to money . It struck me odd how intently Keeva questioned John on his finances asking him if he was a millionaire . He denied this but intimated maybe in assets. Josie did not appear as animated about this fact as Keeva did. They found out about the money at the same time.
Don't misunderstand me I do think they are friends and like each other and perhaps they have become better friends since the end of BB , however, it wasn't that evident during BB to me.
Hi Pickles
My abiding 2 memories of JJ were 1. when he worked on John to wear the crab suit, being the mature adult and wearing his own silly outfit, I think he sort of shamed John into changing his mind rather than anybody else there, who used a different tack unsuccessfully. 2. when Nathan had been into the house and John was talking about the situation, JJ again was mature enough to say that he too would have been angry in Nathan's shoes and could see where he was coming from. He didn't automatically agree with John like some others did.
Also, looking back into my foggy memory of two years ago
So sorry Ali, forgot to quote this is a reply to your post xxxx
lol no worries
I wasn't sure he was worried about them being alone together; I remember that he was determined to find out if they were on a task, and got the impression he was jealous because they were and he wasn't included. He nagged and nagged at them, unconcerned that it could ruin the task.
Robert Winston on Child of Our Time explored the whole nature vs nuture. This was the programme that took children born at the millenium & we saw them for the first few years of their lives. Not sure if it is going to continue or BBC have pulled the plug.
Bascially he did a test when they were toddlers which very clearly showed those with extrovert personalities & those who were more introverted. The genetic link here was clear He then did further tests over the years & we also saw the lives unfold of each of the children. Ranging from stable comfortable middle class families, family breakup, quite severe family dysfunction.
He was able to demonstrate that what happens to a child particularly in the early years has a profound impact on the personalities of the child. You had a child who was quite high on the introvert scale but was brought up in a secure nuturing family unit, encouraged etc. who had a very well developed sense of self, his esteem was strong. This meant that whilst he was naturally shy he was comfortable & able to fit in & express himself. Compare with another child who was naturally an extrovert but had a troubled unbringing his sense of self was poor. The bubbly confident toddler was lost & his future looked very uncertain.
Excellent programme as it was able to show quite ably why if you want to 'save' a child you need to intervene quite early.
This programme was a follow-on from a documentary called '7 up' which began in 1964. Focusing more on socio-economic issues, the programme has followed a group of individuals from the age of 7, catching up with them every 7 years. They will be 56 this year and the new episode is aired some time next month.
I find the 'nature-nurture' debate highly fascinating, especially in the light of advances in genetics, which seem to demonstrate that a large proportion of our personality traits (such as 'addictive' behaviour) are determined by our genes. And yet part of the human condition is the capacity to change, so there is no magic formula.
No No NO Pickles. I'm not talking about that time, he had told Keeva before Josie. Before this he told Keeva. Sounds like a rehash of the UP Series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series
I have had huge changes in my family makeup and my circumstances, yet I'm still the same (basically) as I was when I was a toddler. My sister is totally utterly different, couldn't be more different if we tried. It has to do more with intellect than anything else. IMO.
no...I thought he had told Josie days before this......
we have been through this before.......and dont seem to get any resolution.......
Josie knew fairly early on that John had money ...from his clothes cosmetics etc......and im sure they had spoken about it as well......about his house, and that his dad had built him his own apartment etc, about his mums horses etc....
and im sure they had talked about his sports car and how he loved to take his mum out for a drive etc....
maybe they didnt speak of exact sums...but it was easy to work out that john had money....
he had enough to buy his own tickets at the o2 for the michael jackson gig...and to pay to come over....
all of these convos were before the one with josie and keeva...
Two totally seperate series. 7UP has been running since 1964 & is still ongoing. Originally a Granda production & now on Channel 4.
You obviously know better than Lord Winston. Personally I'll take my lead from a internally recognised expert in this field!!
Nature means that you are pre-dispositioned to be, act, suffer illness but it is the nuture that you have along the way that determines if or how much these traits actually impact. Eg: pre-disposition to type 2 diabetes. If you have a healthy diet during your life you delay the onset until late in life. On the other hand if you have a sugar rich diet & are significantly overweight the onset can be very early in adulthood.
However, if you are born without empathy; no matter how well you're nurtured, cared for and taught right from wrong - you still won't have empathy.
Exactly. 'Nature' means that a characertistic is inborn (i.e. bestowed by nature). What is up for debate is the extent to which environmental factors may encourage or inhibit the development of that characteristic. With physical conditions such as diabetes type 2, the relationship between 'nature' and 'nurture' is subject to empirical invesigation, and it is relatively easy to eliminiate the possiblity of other influences.
With 'psychological' or personality traits, it is much more difficult to isolate a 'condition' and assess how far 'nurture' has an influence. Hence it's particulalry fascinating when science makes claims to have identified a gene which pre-determines, for example, a psychopathic personality. You may say that the gene only dictates a predisposition, but others may disagree.
I agree..ive always thought that both nature and nurture are important...
nature vs nurture is in a way similar to the idea or question about whether our lives can be said to be pre ordained, and subject to fate....or whether they are just subject to our free will and free choices?
I would always want to have an assumption that to a certain extent, everyone does have free will and the right to make a free choice about most aspects of their life.......and in the case of Josie the ablity to change her situation and aspects of her personality....
I think its dangerous to condemn a child to a certain lifestyle and make assumptions about what kind of person they will become before they even start school.....which is what could happen if we go down the route of labelling a gene for being a psychopath....or even for things like autism.....which does now look as if it has some highly genetic factors with this defective mirror gene or whatever.....
As regards things like this so called narcassist streak.....does how acceptable this is, change depending on your background? or even your nationality? Surely someone like Paris Hilton has been a narcassist all her life.....yet she has been encouraged to be as she is...not criticised?
or is it mainly gender based...a woman should have empathy...so if she doesnt display that much that makes her unnatural?
for instance In BB11, I didnt think Ben displayed much empathy...he had lovely manners...and knew how to say the right thing...but he wasnt a very sympathetic kind of person....
I think this whole discussion has gone full circle. It started about whether Josie was' damaged' or whether she 'just is'.
I agree individuals who are born with a disorder can have as part of that no empathy. But that by any other name is being damaged. My brother was born with a learning disability - he is damaged. His nuture has been said by professionals over the years to have led to his development being greater than may otherwise have been the case.
Do we think Josie was was born damaged or have her life experiences led to her damage? Personally my view is that it is the nuture that has led to her unhealthy narcissism.
What I would say is that the BB producers do seem to seek out HMs with obvious personality traits, so there is a disproportionate number of identifiable 'types' in the House in any one series. There's usually a narcissist, a psychopath, an exhibitionist etc,. And conditions are such that a pre-existing tendency to particular behaviour will be exaggerated.
I like your point about certain traits being more acceptable when attached to gender or class, and I100% agree!
Well, we don't know the answer to this. It seems likley that the 'nurture' has had an effect but we don't know, nor can we.
I could start to get a bit sarcastic here......cos I have no idea in reality of the truth of it.....:rolleyes:
my gut feeling is that it is the lack of nurture and care in her life that have led to some of her problems and issues..
but I could do a massive jeremy kyle style expose...and ask about her genetic background and relatives.... and wonder if there are any defective genes in her background?
Of course, he always lived with the knowledge that he was adopted, although he knew no personal details about his parents.
It came to light after his death that his father had also been an alcholic and a bulimic, and had also died young. Coincidence or genetically determined?
I realise that we don't know where her damage originates from but for me there is damage which manifests itself in her unhealthy narcissism. I don't excuse her behaviour by seeing her as damaged likewise I don't badge her with it to do her unduly down. It's about putting some understanding to what we saw on BB & subsequently. Josie put herself up to scrutiny by going on BB & continues to play out every aspect of her life via media. Is this healthy - no but it is her choice.
I understand what you are saying, but you could say it was not healthy for her to go on BB in the first place. Indeed, is it healthy for anybody? Some would say not.
some would take it further and say that watching BB or getting involved in the discussion on threads like this is equally unhealthy.
My view is that it's largely up to the individual, as we do live in a 'free country'. Josie has a right to live her life as she sees fit, as do we all. We might find fault with her behaviour, and label her a narcissist, but our posts pointing this out are in themselves subject to scrutiny. We are each responsible for our own behaviour. What is 'healthy' in relation to BB (and to life in the media) is a subjective judgment.
we are 6 sisters and 1 brother,and his wife became a seven sister. I never felt the need for outside friendship. I have my sisters. .. my brother wife is a diamond.
Thank you. I wanted to make this post, but I'm not articulate
enough.