• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Big Brother
Please welcome the new BB psychologist – Lisa!
John8418
03-07-2003
My reasoning:
If the double eviction was to make room for her, it must have been decided before the nominations, twelve days before she entered the house. If she was a normal contestant, she’d have been sequestered for at least that length of time, but says she wasn’t told about it until three days before she went in.

Why did BB select her in particular from their standbys? Given their behaviour this year, it’s hard to see why they passed on the chance to make another few hundred grand from a ‘choose the replacement housemate’ poll.

BB made a point of telling the HMs that she was eligible for the £70,000, probably to wind them up. That's an excellent way to assure a warm welcome for a new housemate!

She was unnaturally self-assured in her first few hours – not the behaviour you’d expect from a real contestant parachuted in so late in the show.

Since then, she’s done pretty well at making waves, disturbing the over-bland balance of the house.

She was excused the weekly task at the last minute, for no very good reason. Several FMs have pointed out that this looks suspicious. Suppose they’d lost after she took part: when her status in the house came to light, she’d be torn to pieces by housemates shrieking “give us back our £123”.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. If Lisa was an Endemol employee, the tabloids would have found out by now. But there is a way to keep news out of the papers. You send them a press release, with an embargo date. I would guess that the embargo will lift on Saturday evening, before or during the live task. This is when she’ll drop the mask.

It has to be before the Monday nominations, otherwise Endemol will have breached their own rules. There’s bound to be something in there banning employees of Endemol/C4 and their relatives. It’s ok for her to pretend to compete, but they couldn’t let her go up for nomination – she’ll have to break cover before then. And when better than during a well-watched Saturday night programme, and in plenty of time for the Sunday papers to pick it up?

Then, on Sunday night, there she is on the psychology programme, explaining that it was the best possible way to get to know the housemates and the pressures they are under, and for them to get to know her. It won’t hurt her public profile either, or that of the show!

On the other hand, I could be talking long-winded b0ll0cks.
matt.b
03-07-2003
psychology is a non degree. Non proven hypothesis and general knowledge combined with loads of arrogance and statistic knowledge of a 3 year old.


look at this post:

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...517#post996517


hmm undergraduates are worthless, in his opinion. He studied beyond PhD level. wooooooooooooooooooo.

Well as a postgraduate science research fellow i tell you.

Dont be so arrogant. Well you published. Who read it 3 people. 2 peer reviewers and the editor?

Time to get academia out of the middle ages and clean up arrogant PhD fcuk as that guy.

Having finished a PhD myself, 98% of my fellow students were so far up their elitarian arses, that any word from them can just be considered shite.

PhD means you studied one thing in detail, not that u are rulers of the earth.

People without PhD have intelligence too. Not that I would expect you to understand that domino. Could be hard as a psychologist
Last edited by matt.b : 03-07-2003 at 01:54
Papyrus
03-07-2003
Quote:
“Originally posted by matt.b
psychology is a non degree. Non proven hypothesis and general knowledge combined with loads of arrogance and statistic knowledge of a 3 year old.


look at this post:

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...517#post996517


hmm undergraduates are worthless. He studied beyond PhD level. wooooooooooooooooooo.

Well as a postgraduate science research fellow i tell you.

Dont be soo ****ing arrogant. Well you published. Who read it 3 people. 2 peer reviewers and the editor?
”

:yawn: :sleep:
oldgit
03-07-2003
If it looks like sh*t , smells like sh*t and tastes like sh*t there's a better than even chance it is sh*t , end of psychology lesson where's my fee ?
matt.b
03-07-2003
Quote:
“Originally posted by Papyrus
:yawn: :sleep: ”

Gotta help Calrissian Papyrus
matt.b
03-07-2003
Quote:
“Originally posted by oldgit
If it looks like sh*t , smells like sh*t and tastes like sh*t there's a better than even chance it is sh*t , end of psychology lesson where's my fee ? ”

hehe £50 quid for the intro session.

You want direct debit
Little Ali
03-07-2003
Better not call her a "psychologist" John8418, it seems to upset some people here. You know, the PhD people who think three letters make them God.
matt.b
03-07-2003
Quote:
“Originally posted by Little Ali
Better not call her a "psychologist" John8418, it seems to upset some people here. You know, the PhD people who think three letters make them God. ”

i am god
Papyrus
03-07-2003
May I recommend Argyle's 'The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour' to anyone... Me thinks people are too de-individuated on here anyway...
Minisidewalk
03-07-2003
Excellent post

I have been thinking on the very same lines as yourself but think she may be

1.Member of the production team

2. One of those motivator types that companies send their employee's too.

3. Someone who has been well briefed before entering the house who's sole purpose is to stir up the housemates but she is who she say's she is.

My guess is No1 but like you i could be talking a load of bullshit as well but at least it has perked up my interest in the show.
JonDoe
03-07-2003
4. Just one of the more outspoken standbys who has been briefed thus:

BB: Look if we let you in do you promise to stir them up a bit? We're dying on our arses here.

L: Yes

BB: OK then on you go.


edit: just noticed the missing calrissian link.
Last edited by JonDoe : 03-07-2003 at 03:15
domino
08-08-2003
hello matt.b

Quote:
“Originally posted by matt.b
psychology is a non degree. Non proven hypothesis and general knowledge combined with loads of arrogance and statistic knowledge of a 3 year old.”

if psychology is a non-degree, what is a 'proper' degree?

statistical competance in psychology is varied mostly because statistics are not fundamental to 'psychology' proper... what you generally find, in research teams i know of, a statistician is brought in to help out in that area... if the research requires that expertise. if not, no need...

as for 'non-proven hypotheses' - tell, einstein, how you 'prove' an hypothesis? in science you falsify, not prove - ever read Popper? probably not... should do, you might learn something... especially given:-

Quote:
“Well as a postgraduate science research fellow i tell you.”

i presume this means you are a 'post doctoral research fellow'? if so, your funders ought to know of your total lack of competance... 'proving' hypotheses, what nonsense... and what is your area of expertise...? not the philosophy of science, that's for sure.

Quote:
“Having finished a PhD myself, 98% of my fellow students were so far up their elitarian arses, that any word from them can just be considered shite.”

it has left you bitter - why's that... did you fail? downgraded to a mphil?

Quote:
“People without PhD have intelligence too. Not that I would expect you to understand that domino. Could be hard as a psychologist ”

duh... i understand that people without phds are intelligent... i also understand there are many people with phds who are as dim as a garden post
EddyBee
08-08-2003
Hello domino ! Good to see you back !
domino
08-08-2003
Quote:
“Originally posted by Eejay
Hello domino ! Good to see you back ! ”

greeting to you 2 dude!
d
John8418
08-08-2003
Thank you, Domino, for resurrecting a post which I’d hoped was safely dead and buried. I know it wasn’t aimed at me – just another battle in the pro/anti-psychology war. In war, of course, it’s often the innocent bystanders that get blown to pieces.

To defend my original post, I believed that either (a) I was on the right lines, or (b) Endemol were so unbelievably stupid that they hadn’t noticed that their flagship programme was sinking, or (c) they’d noticed, but couldn’t figure out anything to save it. In those days, I still believed that there was some professionalism in TV programme making.

In order to stitch together some small part of my tattered reputation, I’m resurrecting another thread in which I played a (slightly) more heroic role.
Mesostim
08-08-2003
Quote:
“Originally posted by matt.b
Gotta help Calrissian Papyrus ”

Why?
domino
09-08-2003
Quote:
“Originally posted by John8418
Thank you, Domino, for resurrecting a post which I’d hoped was safely dead and buried. I know it wasn’t aimed at me – just another battle in the pro/anti-psychology war. In war, of course, it’s often the innocent bystanders that get blown to pieces.

To defend my original post,

etc...

”

fair comment John8418 - sorry to have rattled one off in the wrong direction... were there anymore stories on Lisa's link to Endemol? could she have been a friend of someone in the productoin company...?
ciao
d
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map