No. that was funny. (I wanted slightly wistful smile but DS is fresh out).

This:
Take Dan last night. I was truly unsettled by the numerous threads and posts of people applauding a rather nasty individual taking great pride in (to coin a phrase) publicly flogging an individual. Personally I would never condone that, not even for someone I disliked while in the house. It’s times like that I fear my faith in humanity decreases greatly. Call me overly sensitive but I do feel another’s discomfort and pain at times.

Like your post

It makes me wonder if we, on this forum, are the actual guinea pigs

I see that and my answer remains the same

The publically flogging portion is again as stated, to coin a phrase, ie, not meant literally. In reference to Mitch the caller and his behaviour towards Dan.

Layers of the onion ... I guess we're all part of the same experiment.

This forum is the BB forum, yes, lol. So in essence it is wall to wall Big Brother.

As Scarlet said, throw out the odd BB references and inputs and you should be fine. If it happens to be invaded, well, you can always switch tactics and go for a couple pages on BB, then switch back again

Not blasphemous at all, no. 24/7 takes some doing. Having committed myself to a day of sloth after a tough week, I used it as a stop gap while waiting for lives to regenerate on Candy Crush Saga. (Thrilling.) So it's great from that regard. Thanks to you for making this feel different though.

This thread can be your own little sub forum. But I'm confident you can find a way to start a thread under BB auspices then steer it into your own waters. "If you build it, they will come".

Yes, I remember you and I were both disheartened at the gleeful response to Mitch. Dan in the stocks, Mitch throwing rotten veg, crowd jeering. Eurgh.

Ah, someone criticising Dan.

Your answer isn't the same, fortunately, for if it were, I would still have no idea what or whom you were on about.

Is it a coincidence that Gina and Dexter the two HM with the most colourful and well publicised backstories were the most heavily featured HM in the early weeks of the show,to the extent that the impression was created that the show was all about them and would not be worth watching without them?.Or was this a result of an agreement between the shows producers and those representing the interests of these two HM to publicise these colourful backstories in such a way as to pique the interest of the potential viewer who would then be rewarded for tuning in by seeing those they had tuned in for disproportionately featured in the edit

It is also so possible that a market research strategy was put in place by the producers with the assistance of psychologists to asses exactly which kind of characters the actual or potential viewer of the show would most likely respond to you and the applicants most fitting that type could then be groomed to fill those roles so guaranteeing a strong audience of avid supporters of those HM.

This may explain the, for some, mystifying popularity of Gina and Dexter and also why we know so much more of their backstories in comparison to those of the other HM.

Just a thought,

Right. Hence my response on a thread about barbarism and how we've evolved. I used that as an example.


I wouldn't have called it criticism so much as open, aggressive hostility from someone trying to act big.

Not sure how my answer wasn't the same though.

Really, you're not sure? Even though your second post gave the answer to my question and the first one didn't. How strange.

Any particular reason you've decided to pick apart my posts?

The basic points in both my posts are the same, I merely elaborated on the comment you quoted. The basic point stays the same though. The term publically flogging was to coin a phrase, not a literal statement and the entire quote was in reference to a different thread that I thought fit in quite nicely here too as the basic tone and ideas were the same.

What has that to do with the it? I merely asked you who and what it was a reference to and in my second post to you I posted your relevant text in order to try to get the answer. You then replied that your answer remained the same [as in your first post], even though clearly it didn't remain the same, since you answered my question as to who and what in your second post!

This series hasn't done much to challenge my perceptions about the various archetypes tbh.

Is Gina not materialistic and image focused?
Is Hazel not a ruthlessly seductive woman?
Is Dexter not manipulative and calculating?
Was Dan not domineering and patronising?

I can see that there is more to them than just those traits but those traits are still there if you see what I mean.

Excellent contribution, Diesel, and well thought through!

I'll pick up on your PR / back story points a little bit.

Whether contrived or otherwise, Dexter seems to have made sure he had a website up and ready, highlighting business interests and what looked to me like fake, staged papped photos of him being snapped while apparently falling over a bag of refuse in the street.

Dexter, being Dexter though, was, miraculously, able to pose and look straight into the lens of the camera when being caught out by the press?

Mmmmh. I doubt it ... but I admire his front and tenacity in seemingly covering all bases even if those bases are a little wonky or flawed.

The limo with the personalised plates? The model on his arm appearing distressed at being photographed? Even the girlfriend's gift of giving him his free pass was a ferociously creative concept ... and it did work because Dexter never got fallout for flirting and sharing a bed with Charlie.

Think about that. The man pre-empted and neutralised a potential future, awkward situation he might or might not have faced.

Mind you, if the website is supposed to be authentic, Dexter should spend some attention taking out those random capital letters in the middle of sentences ... and remove the full stops that also show up like quantum particles popping in and out of existence!

---

Gina's back story, like her general demeanour, is far more robust and includes a glossy blog of socialite style chit chat, Gina's comment and opinion and an impressive portfolio of products she has allegedly reviewed or tested for, someone commented, the last 12 months or more.

I only clicked back several pages but after viewing it, I was compelled to think, "If this is a contrived back story, someone has spent a considerable time crafting and creating it."

I was forced, by sheer logic, gut feeling or something else, to say to myself. "This must be genuine. This must be true" ... and, yeah, I can't help but still be impressed at the depth of comment and reviews, the classy, (yes classy), product placement and general lush quality of the blog.

As I've commented before, even if Gina wasn't all she seemed, the moment she walks down those stairs, (even without winning a BB prize), she is going to become a wealthy woman on the endorsement and product contracts she WILL pick up.

Your intriguing point remains though, Diesel. PR wise, why have Dexter and Gina caught the ship before it sailed while most other HM's were left standing on the dock?

One stark answer might be that only Gina and Dexter understand the game they are playing.

That, or the secrets and lies theme has just given the producers carte blanche to take the format any which way they like ... using ANY methods, even tipping off certain ingoing HM's. Is that a feasible , possible scenario?

I've only been here a week or so ... but I know that wouldn't go down well in these quarters.

---

Edit. Added a sentence after first posting.

Brilliant Taratia. Ha ha Because you are absolutely, 100% completely correct in that assumption. Best reply I've had since being here.

But why would I admit that?

Well, isn't it obvious? I love exploring the minds of others. (Just like you folks do viewing BB). I enjoy mulling over and exploring the human condition. (Just like you folks do viewing BB) and I love seeing how people tick. (Just like you folks do viewing BB).

The only difference, aside from me also being a BB fan is, I get my fix from forums like this instead of off the telly.

Trouble is, if I wanted to raise a thread discussing artificial intelligence or robotics, I'd have to post something like;

"Do you think the Twins could benefit from cerebral augmentation?

No. That's not going to work, is it?

Nite all. :sleep:

There seems to be an assumption here that you're different to "us folks". That we don't watch BB to explore others' minds and then post here for the same reason. Apart from trolls, what other reason is there?

Some may not be as erudite or as articulate or as intellectual as others, but I'd say we share that motive in common, even if individuals aren't aware that's what they're doing. And we all, ALL of us, have our own idiosyncrasies or eccentricities.

Night.

Wow this has warmed my cockles - actually I don't have any cockles of my own so I will have to warm someone else's! Been out, came back, logged on to DS - not much doing, made a couple of acerbic comments on NEW "I don't know why you stick up for Hazel threads" - Yawn fest! Decide not much doing on the forum so toddle off. Come back to find this thread didn't die and has flourished and stayed on point.

I am uplifted but now playing catch up. So many great posts to think about and comment on. However courtesy dictates the OP gets first dibs. So in response:

Yes some of the plots fail and that is so inevitable you can plan contingency for it. Safe House 2 was a classic example of a plot set up that could have had a best case scenario outcome and a lesser but still acceptable alternative outcome. As it happened it backfired spectacularly. Do I think they are contrived? Totally ... but perhaps not in quite such a premeditated way as the word might suggest. (although your definition above is more or less what I had in mind) I merely suggest that if you select and build suitable candidates and set up the right conditions there is a better than average chance of getting a ‘good’ outcome. After all if you randomly select the right ingredients to make a cake, even if you get them in the wrong order and the wrong proportions the output is probably going to be cake like and if it isn’t it will at least be biscuit like.

Hazel and Daley alone in the safe house (and some alcohol) was inevitably going go somewhere and produce some juicy footage. Ideally a writhing duvet but failing that a row would have done. I don’t think they bargained on what actually did happen (as an aside the footage I would really like to see is that of the late night production team as that unfolded.) But at the end of the day what did take place doesn’t seem to have hurt. It has kept the franchise going with copy for its print publication for a fortnight and that in turn has kept the show in the headlines. Sounds like a win/win to me. (and I sound terribly cynical!) This is why I don’t by the preordained winner theory. The business of a TV maker is to make shows that are talked about and watched. I don’t see why the producers would care whether or not the public like the outcome or how else they would benefit from this winner or that. Except, possibly following an international diplomatic incident.

My point, in this scenario where I imagine how I would operate to make a show like this, is that finding and selling us archetypes is the easy bit and makes the rest of the equation more manageable The bit I would fear most is events, dear boy, events. (Not sure who said that - Ted Heath?) This is why I used the project planning analogy. You can’t foresee or plan for every eventuality but if you have a good supply of contingencies prepared you can do a ‘here’s one I prepared earlier’ to get you out of a tight squeeze or the doldrums, as needed. The value of selecting archetypes in the first place is that it puts a degree of predictability back into the uncertainty. You have a good idea how such individuals will react and inter-react and an even better idea of how the audience will receive them (given a prod or two). Even if the individuals don’t perform to type, if you are lucky the outcome will still be good or at least OK and if it isn’t, well, tomorrow is another day.

In answer to your question about my user name. Sorry to disappoint but I am not actually an anthropologist. (I am interested in the origins of man but its more of a hobby) My academic background is that of a linguistician but that's harder to make into a proper name without sounding smutty. My areas of interest are the psychological/sociological aspects of language. The idea being that language is a window into how the mind works. So I focus on the cognitive aspects and try to apply this to understand the behaviour of individuals and groups. There is a fair amount of cross over though between the various social science disciplines. Where the demarcation lines are depends on who you talk to and what day it is (what time it is sometimes). I won’t say more because I value my anonymity on the forum and even more crucially I have not come out to my friends, colleagues and peers as a BBholic. Often I do take an academic view of the show but in the privacy of my own head and this forum if a chance presents. Otherwise it is and will remain my guilty pleasure.

It was supposedly Harold MacMillan, in response to the question 'what do you fear most?' during an interview. However there's no actual pinned down date or interview, so it may be apocryphal or some snatched conversation.

Me too. When people were predicting the demise of the show after Dan's exit, I was imagining a team meeting:

Team: erm, well that twist didn't pan out quite how we wanted.

Producer: come on guys, it's our job to keep this entertaining. The show shouldn't rely on one or two characters. Now, give me a B, gimme an I, gimme a G! ....

Etc etc.


Completely agree, and I've said this on many "such and such is The Chosen One" threads. They have no vested interest beyond creating drama or entertainment. And of course voting revenue. Dan's edit last week wasn't to 'get him out'. It was because he gave them more to work with. AND it would have maximised voting numbers. Their job is now to maintain the show after his exit. I doubt there's too much worry about it. Particularly after last night's Hazel and Charlie shenanigans!


My interest is social psychology and I love to watch with that hat on. And like you, I don't like to broadcast my viewing habits!

Thanks Dave. Before my time I am afraid. I had thought it was Harold Wilson but didn't think he would say dear boy so settled for Heath. If it wasn't said it should have been.

Yep. Thread is serenely sailing along, still filling canvas from a breeze here or a gust there and all is well and shipshape. I'll be heading for land shortly and have plans to find me a new ship ... and some new destination. Be prepared though. The next adventure may be a very, very long one

Your comments regarding contingency plans remains interesting, as was your cake analogy ... though I'd say we have sometimes ended up with a Jaffa cake rather than a biscuit, with the half baked outcome sometimes being neither cake nor biscuit.

Not an anthropologist? ... How very disappointing ... :yawn: No. I'm joking, of course I am, and I am equally as fascinated in language and its use, though I probably come at it from the ancient philosophical point of view. I have a top 20 'heroes of history" style list of role models and my joint number one candidate is Socrates, though it also ebbs and flows between Newton and, occasionally, Marcus Aurelius.

Socrates, aside from many, many other things, made a specific point of ensuring that those in conversation with him, (or each other), should ponder, contemplate and choose the right word or meaning in their conversations ... and when Socrates noted that someone had, perhaps, said something ambiguous or he wasn't sure what they thought they meant, it was Socrates who would invite debate to actually establish the true meaning of whatever word, thought or subject was under debate or scrutiny. If you examine my original O.P, you'll see that I, well, Beach, has provided a rich seam of subject matter for a reader to plunder and consider before crafting a response ... and you'll also note the post is teeming with questions and examples of potential scenarios or possible explanations for a variety of events. I construct posts in this way to break down a concept or idea into tasty little components that can be plucked, picked up and pursued by a reader. Also, like Socrates, I understand and deploy rhetoric, to best express, experience, understand or make a point or observation.

Socrates says he likes the fact that I maintains elements of his philosophical method in my posts.

Tell me. An T ...Tell me how a human being can evaluate the world and build a depth or breadth of understanding into their perception of it ... if they lack the fundamental, basic ability to structure a coherent sentence together, either as a visual, textual or abstract form in their head ... or on a page or forum post?

A former BB contestant , (the anthropophobic one), was a prime example. I mean I may sound cruel in suggesting it but if a person is kind of dysfunctional , has limited vocabulary, poor intellect and an inability to interact or practice social skills with others ... then, leading such an existence might indeed regress them to the level of a single celled organism ... where the only requirement is to eat, copulate and / or reproduce.

My God. What a hellish thought. Being totally controlled by either hunger and libido and not having enough neurones firing to be able to resist, amend or control ones actions, good, bad, moral or otherwise.

Terrifying eh? But BB producers see nothing wrong in introducing us to such pond life, do they?

That's why, like you, An T, (and probably thousands of others), I keep my illicit pastime of watching Big Brother a great big secret ... or at least on a need to know basis ... though I note that every single thing we all utter and type on these pages, immediately comes up in a simple Google search result.

Sounds like the CAST OF NODDY to me .

It would not surprise me if BB had the psychologists reading these forums, seeing what we discuss and how we react to events on the show and the discussions about the events. This then giving them information for whatever.......

I know that I post - I wonder what my posts would say about me.