I second this, disliking somebody and presenting a rational arguement for doing so is perfectly acceptable. However I find it bizarre when some people have a fixation with hating a person and constantly vitriolically attack, criticise and refuse to see acknowledge any good in them.
Your right people who create such hate campaigns on facebook are seriously insecure.

By the same token: the sheer time and energy spent in posts that try to discredit anyone who dares to say anything that is remotely -ve about one of their favourites makes you wonder what personal problems they have that they feel such a need for negativity.

Anyone is not only entitled to hold a poor opinion of someone but they are also entitled to justify this opinion. We don't know these candidates and the overly simplistic view that we get from the edit is not satisfying for most of us. Therefore, many forum members try to give a balanced viewpoint. They succeed in times and fail in others mainly because of personal preferences. Many of them are probably prepared to accept their fault if presented with a good argument.

It is really doesn't serve any purpose that whenever anyone dares to criticise a favourite, they get loads of this , this :yawn:, and this :sleep:. If someone says in the spoiler thread that Lorraine is going this week, then they are "haters". If another says that Lorraine doesn't voice her opinion until it is too late, then they are classified as insecure people with personal problems. Even Margaret .. just because she dared to voice a negative about Lorraine, she was labelled inconsistent and she was playing to the gallery.

If someone doesn't like a post about one of the candidates, they are entitled to defend them and argue in their favour. However, they are not entitled to make assumptions about the poster's motives or their personal lives when their only fault is trying to offer a balanced opinion.

Haven't really noticed that.

Given that every candidate is having negative things said about them all the time a moments though would tell you that anyone doing what you said would have more than a full time job on their hands.


Of course.

It's just that when the same one or two people post time and again with densely typed arguments (broadly repeating the same things over and over again), you have to wonder: why all the hatred?

There are a few of them around.


You must have came across the type of posters I mentioned in my previous post then. Their posts have detailed densely typed counter-arguments to the ones you refer to above.

I find that I can type densely (perhaps in both senses) and take a mere matter of minutes to do so. I'm not entirely sure how one goes about making character judgements about a FM[s] based on an assumption about how long it may or may not have taken them to craft their posts.

I agree. I also think there is a strong difference between "hatred" and "thinking someone isn't the strongest candidate". Calling someone ugly, making judgements on their personal life, reference to parenting skills....that is unwarranted. But differing opinions on who has the strongest attributes is not hatred; it's debate. We are never all going to agree and have the same perception as we all lead differing lifes, have different personalities etc.... Those people who work with people like Debra or have friends like Debra will emphasize with and understand Debra. Those who are similar to Kate will emphasize with her. Those similar to Lorraine or have the same life experiences will emphasize with her. Then there is simply the different office environments and careers that will give opposing view. My flatmates and I all work in totally different environments so have differing views on the candidates. But it's just an opinion and a viewpoint. None of us end up screaming at each other. In fact we quite like the fact we all have differing views and I find it interesting how different situations can be perceived differently. Part of the reason I like the Apprentice is the psychology aspect. But hate is such a strong word and I really struggle to see how anybody can hate candidates on a show we have never met and see for a totally of 20 mins a week in a pressurised task under extreme circumstances and pressure. All we can do is assess their competence as we view it and business attributes as well as personality. To claim anything else is difficult as a lot of the candidates at night, away from the boardroom and tasks are probably different people, more relaxed. I know their is a work me and a home me, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the candidates are the same.

But at the end of the day, this show isn't about who is popular and who isn't. It's about who would fit best in an organisation and has the best business attribute.

But you do sometimes get a kind of group-think, when a consensus forms and becomes very hard to dislodge because people reinforce each other's opinions. It can be especially hard to dislodge if you are the one being discounted. I don't think that's happened here; but I don't see the unpopularity of Lorraine with the other candidates as another reason to down-grade her.

Could you name names? Otherwise I'm going to wonder if you mean me. Mostly because I love this show and I'm willing to spend time, not just crafting detailed posts, but rewatching the footage to make sure I get it right. And I try to avoid vitriol and personal remarks. You make it sound like these are bad traits.

You may well be right...

Another possible explanation called the Bandwagon effect/herding instinct may explain "why" so many of the other contenders dislike her and "why" the dislike has rubbed off on groups of individuals who don't know her from adam...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

Obviously just speculation though...

I seem to recall watching an interview with Kimberly, where she mentioned that Philip along with others had warned her on the very first day not to bother with Lorraine, which, if true, could sadly reinforce your theory. However, as you stated its only speculation .

Certainly not!

Are you trying to get me banned?

I would say, though, that your paragraph structure is good enough not to be refered to as 'densely typed'.

This is exactly what I see on this year's TA.

Sadly, I've seen it in real life, and it's an ugly thing.

Even if you're not the person being discounted it's hard to dislodge. It's not something you can do just by making the concerned people aware of the situation.

To what 'situation' ought people be made aware?

As far as I can see much of the above is some kind of 'them and us [the right-thinking]' rationalization for the fact that a large number of FMs on this forum, with some evidence, discount Lorraine's so-called supreme 'instinct'. Why do you presuppose a kind of 'right' to dislodge anything?

If you read the interviews of previous contestants; most say they like Lorraine. They just don't rate her as the one to win the show. And what is wrong with that at the end of the day? Their opinion is just as valid as ours. they have no reason to discounther more than others when they have left the competition. They also have seen and spent longer with candidates than the hour show we see each week, so know the contestants a lot more than we do. We don't see every side to the candidate they do. One thing that does come across for the 5 remaining candidates is that each of them seem, in my opinion, to have their own opinion. I have never got the impression that any of them are reinforcing someone else's opinion uncomfortably. I have never seen a shred of evidence of any type of bullying. If they don't rank Lorraine; why is their opinion discredited? If they underestimate Lorraine and see flaws where SAS sees weaknesses that is their own problem. I dont see why Lorraine's weaknesses should not be addressed or a no go area. I've heard some of them talk quite negatively of James too. At the end of theday this isn't a personality contest. My ranking of who I like as a person vastly differs to those I rate as srong candidates,

This has got absolutely nothing to do with members of this forum.

Did you miss the part I've underlined and emboldened?

Your use of the 'confused' smilie is very appropriate as you are, indeed, very confused.

I hope that if you re-read bearing in mind that I was talking about a real life situation, it will become clear to you.

I didn't miss it at all - you can embolden or underline after the fact as much as you wish...my reading, you were tacitly connecting TA - your take on some aspects of this year...the opposition to your take re: Lorraine...and 'real life' ugly situations where the 'poor misguided group/herd' need corrected and dislodged from their opinion.

I wasn't in the least confused.

I'm afraid that you are still confused and reading what you want to read rather than what's there.

In response to nickymonger saying: "And the ex candidates live with each other for weeks. There is no smoke without fire.", Brangdon said: "But you do sometimes get a kind of group-think, when a consensus forms and becomes very hard to dislodge because people reinforce each other's opinions. It can be especially hard to dislodge if you are the one being discounted. "

My response was entirely related to that (the clue is that it was quoted above the post you are confused about).



Not only were you demonstrably confused you even added a 'confused' smilie at the end. It was aposite.

Edit: It may help to ease your confusion to note that there isn't a group mentality operating in this forum as there are as many people with good opinions or Lorraine as there are with bad so my comment about what happens in real life would not even make any sense applied here.

I was talking in the abstract, not specifically about Lorraine. The possibility of group-think, both in the candidates and in ourselves, is something to be aware of and guard against. That other candidates rate Lorraine poorly is not, in itself, compelling evidence that Lorraine deserves a poor rating.

I am a Lorraine supporter. I would love to be in a team with her. She does rub people up the wrong way by pointing out when the emperor actually has no clothes on. This does irritate people, but they are the ones with the problem, not her. She failed to argue a point with the team leader in this week's task - but be fair he was team leader and she did not have the right to go against his instructions. No-one is going to want to employ someone who is in continual confrontation with the manager. I would not have pushed the point either, if I was her, although perhaps she could have made a better job of selling the dinosaur to the boss and then he may have come around to her way of thinking. If only she had been able to do a quick mock-up of a TV demo in front of him while they were deciding, then she may have won the day. Unfortunately, she's just not that spontaneous, she likes to thnk about things first, she is, as she says, a "slow burner". I can see why SAS likes her, too, but I think she's gone next week. The interviewers will crucify her because she likes to think before she speaks or acts. A slow-burner is often someone who likes to think before they act, the better to make the right decision. Not so good in opportunism, but good in planning - as she has proved. I suspect she's phenomenally intelligent - not always a good thing in business, because getting other people to see where you're coming from can be a problem unless you are very good at thinking down to other people's level. I suspect Lorraine has that problem - what to her is obvious takes more explaining to the others and she is often lost for words. I so often see on her face what I think others interpret as a look of stupidity, but I interpret as a look of incredulity at other people's stupidity.

I would definitely employ her because I don't mind other people telling me when my ideas are rubbish as long as I have the final say because I can listen and I can alter my opinion if the case is strong enough. To me, Lorraine doesn't come across as confrontational in the slightest, she just comes across as someone who wants to point out things that other people might not have spotted. And she's very good at doing that. and that's why she rubs people up the wrong way. She was a great team leader, and even her antagonists admitted that.

So are you saying Tern that you are referring to me as "hating" Lorraine. Because if you are, I am here to explicitly tell under no certain terms to not be citing how I feel about someone. I do not hate Lorraine. I do not hate anyone on the Apprentice. My views on people are purely based on how I view them in business. I don't know any of them personally o possibly even develop any feelings of "hatred", which is such a strong word as it is. The only person in the apprentice that I know in terms of ever having met on a personal level, and even then I don't know her as in a friend, is Kate.

I have said on many occasions that I feel Lorraine has good business acumen. But because I don't agree with you that Lorraine should win; I now "hate" someone and my view isn't valid? Why is your opinion more valid than anyone elses? Everyone is entitled to support or wish a candidate to win. But your continual insistence that anyone who criticises Lorraine is a "hater" and "hating her because of her looks or whatever other "personal" reason you choose" is frustrating to say the least. Please show me where I have posted a view on Lorraine to attack her looks or personal life. The term "smoke without fire" for me was used in reference to the last four ex-candidates coming out of the show and saying exactly the same things about Lorraine as I quote and believe. And their opinion is about her as a candidate, not her personal life or how they think she is a nasty person. I share their viewpoints that I think Lorraine has good business acumen, but does not communicate well and I agree with them that it would come across frustrating for someone at the latter stages of a task to be citing points too late to change. I simply think there are other candidates in the show better than her. IT doesn't mean I think she wouldn't do well in another role in another firm. And I stick by that opinion. But nowhere in that do I "hate" Lorraine or wish any illfeeling on her. This is a TV show. It has no bearing on my life who wins or loses at the end of the day. So if Lorraine did win - good luck to her. I just don't believe she will. Doesn't mean I won't turn out to be completely proven wrong though. But I won't be changing my opinion just because you don't agree with it.

I agree with your point about her intelligence and her logic as well as look of incrdulity. I disagree that she was said to be a great team leader though. They actually said she was okay and better than last time. I'm pretty certain if we asked all the candidates to name the best team leaders of the series that she would not win any of the votes. she certainly hasn't been the worst of the series either and has been much better than many of the candidates who have left. Even if she lost the show, I'm certain she would do well in the "real world".

No.

I've made it completely clear that I was refering to something Brangdon wrote about what can happen in r/l. I actually said in the original post: "in real life"

I've explained what I meant and I've explained that not only was I not refering to what happens here it would make no sense to do so because it is not happening in this forum.


???

I suppose that meant something to you when you wrote it.

My post was about a specific type of group mentality in real life so how on earth you think it can relate specifically to you God alone knows.

I apologize for having been rather off-the-cuff-ish earlier today in my post...I was literally dashing out the door for the afternoon so didn't give due diligence.

You can be 'afraid' all you choose to but I maintain that I was not in the least confused as to the substantive of your post, as quoted, or to the general tenor of your body of work re: the matter at hand.

Your post in question (allowing for the part you failed to quote back to me - underscored and emboldened) expressly agreed with Brangdon's assertion that group/herd negativity was at play in this year's TA. Your further reference to real life is neither here nor there unless, of course, you wish to maintain going off-topic.

You may not have explicitly stated that you were applying the misguided group-mentality to FMs but you clearly apply it to TA candidates who, by and large, have negative things to say about Lorraine. It's not too large a stretch - having observed other posts - to assume that you hoped to make a wee (clever-boxed) suggestion that FMs are guilty of the same type of group-mentality.

Even accepting Brangdon and your assertion as to this herd-cluster-thinking...it's like sometimes they are out to get the paranoid

For the record, I was mistaken in using the confused smiley as a sop to you and trying to soften my post. I know for future reference not to take a passive approach with some...

Lorraine is not a legend. She is a rude individual who has done extremely well to get this far.

No it's just that you confusion still has not abated.

There is no group mentality here. There are as many people praising Lorraine as denigrating her


Please go and re-read what Brangdon wrote carefully. You should then note that he specifically says he does not think it's happening 'here'. (You need to see what he's responding to for the context of 'here': the TA candidates, not the forum).

So I am in fact expressly disagreeing with him.

You can see why I feel that you are still rather confused.


Again, more confusion on your part.

If you are complaining that the latter part of the post was off topic, then you are correct. Most people are not so anal that they object to background observations.


That is probably your daftest and most confused assertion yet.

How could anyone hope that readers are going to see a suggestion such as you suggest when it's patantly untrue?



I disagree. You were confused then and you don't seem to be any clearer now.