Thursday, December 17, 2015
Day 35
Today was our final. I edited, formatted, and had a friend edit my term paper again. I also created my works cited and have officially submitted it.
Friday, December 11, 2015
Day 34
Today I finished my thesis paper. YAYYYYYYY!
The next week will consist of me editing it to make it the best possible ever!
The next week will consist of me editing it to make it the best possible ever!
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Day 33
Today I continued working on my paper. I have half a page left, and then I will be at 6 pages. I think I should finish that tonight. I also read a chapter in my psychology textbook all about persuasion.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Day 32
Today I continued writing my Thesis Midterm paper, with specific emphasis on the impact the book How to Win Friends and Influence People has had on my thesis paper, including looking at a specific moment in survivor history (the final 6 rock draw) which greatly represents the power of two key principals outlined in that specific book.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Day 31
I continued writing my paper today.
AND I JUST HAD AN EPIPHANY.
I think the "social psychology" and "game theory" is simply too much for this thesis. Those can be master thesis's within themselves. Instead, I think I want to focus more on the psychological aspect of it. And more importantly: the art of persuasion. Because to me, THAT is what makes a "social game" on Survivor. Not someone simply being nice, but a person who is able to effectively convince others to do their bidding. Strategic acumen and physicality are worthless without this key skill set.
As I have continued writing this paper, that has become the most pervasive part of my research and I think that is what I want to wholly focus in on. I think I am sacrificing breadth for depth and I think I will have a more effective thesis as a result.
AND I JUST HAD AN EPIPHANY.
I think the "social psychology" and "game theory" is simply too much for this thesis. Those can be master thesis's within themselves. Instead, I think I want to focus more on the psychological aspect of it. And more importantly: the art of persuasion. Because to me, THAT is what makes a "social game" on Survivor. Not someone simply being nice, but a person who is able to effectively convince others to do their bidding. Strategic acumen and physicality are worthless without this key skill set.
As I have continued writing this paper, that has become the most pervasive part of my research and I think that is what I want to wholly focus in on. I think I am sacrificing breadth for depth and I think I will have a more effective thesis as a result.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Day 30
Today, I spent my thesis time working on two things. I finished my essay for my Dec. 1 deadline for a scholarship after given permission by Mr. Correa and then I worked on my thesis paper.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Day 29
One of the biggest questions on Survivor is: Can a person ever really change?
In this season, Survivor Cambodia, the theme is second chance. Everybody returning has played before but none of them have won. A lot of them have tried to change their games and improve on what they viewed as a failure the first time, but many are failing.
Abi Maria Gomez pretty obviously is repeating her same mistakes in being too emotional and not thinking rationally whereas Spencer Bledsoe is actively trying to improve what he felt was his biggest issue: his social game. He is actively trying to form bonds and connections that he feels were his biggest issue the first time. Is he actually improving or was this not a problem before and just what he perceives to have been his biggest issue?
Well, Gordon Allport defined your personality as consistent parts of your behavior. He narrowed it down to 1405 adjectives that could possibly fit under it. Can these be changed or, as Freud would say, your personality is part of your unconscious and it develops from childhood?
I am going to view it from Freud's perspective as unwavering and pretty much untenable in order to best view it from a rational and logical game theory standpoint in order to best decide what move should be made.
This means that Spencer's efforts to change are futile, especially as he is placed in a high stress environment with no food and bad weather.
In this season, Survivor Cambodia, the theme is second chance. Everybody returning has played before but none of them have won. A lot of them have tried to change their games and improve on what they viewed as a failure the first time, but many are failing.
Abi Maria Gomez pretty obviously is repeating her same mistakes in being too emotional and not thinking rationally whereas Spencer Bledsoe is actively trying to improve what he felt was his biggest issue: his social game. He is actively trying to form bonds and connections that he feels were his biggest issue the first time. Is he actually improving or was this not a problem before and just what he perceives to have been his biggest issue?
Well, Gordon Allport defined your personality as consistent parts of your behavior. He narrowed it down to 1405 adjectives that could possibly fit under it. Can these be changed or, as Freud would say, your personality is part of your unconscious and it develops from childhood?
I am going to view it from Freud's perspective as unwavering and pretty much untenable in order to best view it from a rational and logical game theory standpoint in order to best decide what move should be made.
This means that Spencer's efforts to change are futile, especially as he is placed in a high stress environment with no food and bad weather.
Friday, November 20, 2015
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Day 27
One thing that must be addressed is the obvious aspect of all this - it is a TV show. That means editing is taking place for the purpose of story telling.
What do I do with this information? Because someone like me and the podcasters I have listened to have broken down the typical format that these editors use to be able to generally tell which person will be winning the show and which one will be out that episode, etc.
Also, since a 40 minute episode actually took place over the course of 3 days I have to approach it as cannon. That means I am not using exit interviews generally for my interpretation of what a person should or should not have been doing in that situation since those episodes took place months later. Unless it is a public "secret scene" or was on the show, I cannot just assume. I am taking the show for its face value and trying to break it down from that. This will inherently produce some flaws but it is also how I can manage to be my most objective as opposed to favoring contestants who I liked better or avoid criticizing players I simply did not like because of their personality.
I am also trying to avoid "edgic" or breaking down the edit in terms of airtime and story arc to see will win in any given season. This is supposed to be an unbiased research but obviously since winners are more likely to receive screen time (generally), than there will inherently be more of their game play to go off of than the person that was eliminated second in any given season. However, both can be very beneficial in this process.
What do I do with this information? Because someone like me and the podcasters I have listened to have broken down the typical format that these editors use to be able to generally tell which person will be winning the show and which one will be out that episode, etc.
Also, since a 40 minute episode actually took place over the course of 3 days I have to approach it as cannon. That means I am not using exit interviews generally for my interpretation of what a person should or should not have been doing in that situation since those episodes took place months later. Unless it is a public "secret scene" or was on the show, I cannot just assume. I am taking the show for its face value and trying to break it down from that. This will inherently produce some flaws but it is also how I can manage to be my most objective as opposed to favoring contestants who I liked better or avoid criticizing players I simply did not like because of their personality.
I am also trying to avoid "edgic" or breaking down the edit in terms of airtime and story arc to see will win in any given season. This is supposed to be an unbiased research but obviously since winners are more likely to receive screen time (generally), than there will inherently be more of their game play to go off of than the person that was eliminated second in any given season. However, both can be very beneficial in this process.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Day 26
The theory of the "goat":
A goat in Survivor has many different manifestations. But, in its most basic sense, a "goat" is a person dragged to the very end of the game by another person because that other person knows the goat will not receive any votes from the jury. There are different types of goats. From my perspective, these are the most prominent types:
1) The Social Goat - this is a person who everyone hates and so people would never vote for them to receive the million dollar grand prize. This could be a person who is obnoxious, doesn't work around camp, or simply rubs people the wrong way.
2) The Strategic Goat - this is a person who people might like personally, but would never get the jury to hand them the million dollar prize because they did nothing in the game. This could be a person who simply coasted to the end or someone who just simply did whatever another person told them to do and never made any game moves of their own. This person is often perceived by the jury as a potentially "undeserving" winner or an "embarrassment" for lasting longer than far more capable players.
The idea of taking goats to the end has existed for a very long time. In season 6, Rob Cesternino straight up told a member in an opposing alliance that he would flip from his numbers and work with the other alliance because he felt he could beat her. (He turned out to be telling this to the season's future winner Jenna Morasca).
The "goat game" was also taken a step further with the emergence of Russell Hantz in season 19. This was a guy who defied all odds and managed to take a four person alliance to the very end through idol plays and manipulation against an eight person alliance. However, despite his prominent position in the season and the driving strategic mastermind for his alliance, he lost the game to the much quieter Natalie White. This was because Russell had been a nightmare for the tribe. He destroyed people's belongings, treated them all like dirt, and was mean to everyone. Even though he played a masterful strategic game, he ultimately became a goat and could not win because everybody hated him.
The "goat game" finally took its full effect in season 22, in which afterward everyone strives to replicate the exact same thing. Boston Rob led an alliance that season, controlling every single vote from beginning to the end. However, he was a returning player, and was worried that people would hold that against him or be mad at him for lying so much when he got to the finals. So, to guarantee himself the grand prize, he positioned himself to where he ultimately was sitting next to a Strategic goat in Natalie Tenerelli, who listened to Rob's every order, and Phillip Shephard, a strategic goat who alienated his tribe by yelling at all of them, calling people racist, and just being miserable to live with. There was no way now that, had Boston Rob faced a bitter jury, he could lose because the other two options sitting next to him were far worse choices to vote for.
Now, in the modern survivor game, players are always on the lookout for their "Phillips" to take to the end to guarantee them the million dollar prize. The problem is: everyone is after those same players, so how do you make it work?
A goat in Survivor has many different manifestations. But, in its most basic sense, a "goat" is a person dragged to the very end of the game by another person because that other person knows the goat will not receive any votes from the jury. There are different types of goats. From my perspective, these are the most prominent types:
1) The Social Goat - this is a person who everyone hates and so people would never vote for them to receive the million dollar grand prize. This could be a person who is obnoxious, doesn't work around camp, or simply rubs people the wrong way.
2) The Strategic Goat - this is a person who people might like personally, but would never get the jury to hand them the million dollar prize because they did nothing in the game. This could be a person who simply coasted to the end or someone who just simply did whatever another person told them to do and never made any game moves of their own. This person is often perceived by the jury as a potentially "undeserving" winner or an "embarrassment" for lasting longer than far more capable players.
The idea of taking goats to the end has existed for a very long time. In season 6, Rob Cesternino straight up told a member in an opposing alliance that he would flip from his numbers and work with the other alliance because he felt he could beat her. (He turned out to be telling this to the season's future winner Jenna Morasca).
The "goat game" was also taken a step further with the emergence of Russell Hantz in season 19. This was a guy who defied all odds and managed to take a four person alliance to the very end through idol plays and manipulation against an eight person alliance. However, despite his prominent position in the season and the driving strategic mastermind for his alliance, he lost the game to the much quieter Natalie White. This was because Russell had been a nightmare for the tribe. He destroyed people's belongings, treated them all like dirt, and was mean to everyone. Even though he played a masterful strategic game, he ultimately became a goat and could not win because everybody hated him.
The "goat game" finally took its full effect in season 22, in which afterward everyone strives to replicate the exact same thing. Boston Rob led an alliance that season, controlling every single vote from beginning to the end. However, he was a returning player, and was worried that people would hold that against him or be mad at him for lying so much when he got to the finals. So, to guarantee himself the grand prize, he positioned himself to where he ultimately was sitting next to a Strategic goat in Natalie Tenerelli, who listened to Rob's every order, and Phillip Shephard, a strategic goat who alienated his tribe by yelling at all of them, calling people racist, and just being miserable to live with. There was no way now that, had Boston Rob faced a bitter jury, he could lose because the other two options sitting next to him were far worse choices to vote for.
Now, in the modern survivor game, players are always on the lookout for their "Phillips" to take to the end to guarantee them the million dollar prize. The problem is: everyone is after those same players, so how do you make it work?
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Day 25
How to avoid idol plays:
the strategy is to split votes. This is because an idol cancels out all votes cast for whoever plays the idol. Therefore, a situation -
there are 12 people voting. 8 of them are in an alliance versus the 4 who are in the minority alliance. If the 8 people all cast their votes for one person Kelley, who is a member of the 4, and Kelley and her 3 allies vote for Joe then Kelley would be going home. However, if Kelley plays a hidden immunity idol than all the votes cast for her get canceled and those 4 members decide who goes home because the only 4 votes that haven't been canceled are the ones cast for Joe, so he would go home. However, if the 8 members placed 4 votes on Kelley, 4 votes on Ciera (another member of the minority alliance), and then the 4 vote for Joe still, we have a tie. Say Kelley plays her idol and cancels out the votes cast for her, then we still have a tie between Joe and Ciera. SO everyone who is not Joe or Ciera revotes and can only cast their vote between those two. That leaves the 3 members in the minority alliance voting for Joe and the 7 in the majority alliance voting for Ciera. Ciara would go home. This is how to strategically still get someone out from the minority alliance without risking a member of your own alliance going home due to an idol play.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Day 24
The main concept that I've been reading about is along the lines of embarrassment and dealing with impressions and perception.
The reason that the world "works" is because of the social contract that exists with people - an establishment of identies and the reaction people have toward those establishments.
When someone breaks these establishments and perceptions of identity than the situation is thrown off balance. In Survivor, you need to appeal to a person's identity in order to understand exactly how to move forward.
The person that identifies as the "alpha dog" must not get that role taken away from him until a blindside cause otherwise you could become the target.
The reason that the world "works" is because of the social contract that exists with people - an establishment of identies and the reaction people have toward those establishments.
When someone breaks these establishments and perceptions of identity than the situation is thrown off balance. In Survivor, you need to appeal to a person's identity in order to understand exactly how to move forward.
The person that identifies as the "alpha dog" must not get that role taken away from him until a blindside cause otherwise you could become the target.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Day 22
Today I read about the Nash Equilibrium. This is what Wikipedia explained about it:
Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy. pIf each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing strategies while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitutes a Nash equilibrium. The reality of the Nash equilibrium of a game can be tested using experimental economics method.
Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy. pIf each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing strategies while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitutes a Nash equilibrium. The reality of the Nash equilibrium of a game can be tested using experimental economics method.
Stated simply, Amy and Will are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Will's decision while Will's decision remains unchanged, and Will is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision while Amy's decision remains unchanged. Likewise, a group of players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision possible, taking into account the decisions of the others in the game as long the other party's decision remains unchanged.
Basically, my book keeps reinforcing that Nash equilibrium only works with two rational, self-interested people. That presents a problem in a game like Survivor, because people are cast to make good television (i.e. the majority of them are nor rational players).
To better break down the game I have to assume everyone is playing like a rational player. I have to say if they are rational than what they should do when given the situation they were put in. In my paper I will be assuming the same people and tribes won immunity, but what vote should have been made instead in an effort to win - not simply advance 3 more days. I have to clearly make that distinction because a lot of times people will make decisions just to last a little longer, but a completely rational player (given the false assumption that the only person winning nay monetary compensation is the winner with a 1 million dollar grand prize) would only position themselves to win. The amount that someone is willing to risk of their utility (as discussed in previous blog post) is how badly a person wants to win. You can predict the actions a person should make to win in risky situations based on what will give them the highest utility.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Day 21
Today I finished my application for the Duke November 1 deadline.
I read about Conflict and Cooperation.
Game theory is considered the study of rational behavior. The problem is: how can we determine what is rational? There is nothing less rational about one person's desires than another. There is nothing more rational about me wanting to throw away every DVD I own as opposed to just throwing away one DVD. Therefore, rational behavior is determined as consistency. In this way, when you act consistently you are interpreted as trying to maximize the value of your utility. Utility is what allows players to assign a numerical value to every possible outcome. This goes away when a person does not act consistently.
One issue that Survivor players have to deal with while playing the game is given a specific situation: there are two people, neither of whom are in your alliance. One flip flops all over the place, sometimes voting with you and your allies, the other one having never voted with you before. You have the numbers to vote out either player. What should a person do in this situation?
Many would say you should take out the person who has never voted with you before, because at least the possibility exists for cooperation with the other player. However, in order to produce a playing field with the most rational players, which means their actions would be the easiest to predict, you should take out the wild card.
That is why this season, season 31, has a wild card in a girl named Abi Maria. She flips every single vote, but people are still trying to work with her. THIS IS BAD. She should be everyone's target, because her behavior is unpredictable and impossible to plan around.
I read about Conflict and Cooperation.
Game theory is considered the study of rational behavior. The problem is: how can we determine what is rational? There is nothing less rational about one person's desires than another. There is nothing more rational about me wanting to throw away every DVD I own as opposed to just throwing away one DVD. Therefore, rational behavior is determined as consistency. In this way, when you act consistently you are interpreted as trying to maximize the value of your utility. Utility is what allows players to assign a numerical value to every possible outcome. This goes away when a person does not act consistently.
One issue that Survivor players have to deal with while playing the game is given a specific situation: there are two people, neither of whom are in your alliance. One flip flops all over the place, sometimes voting with you and your allies, the other one having never voted with you before. You have the numbers to vote out either player. What should a person do in this situation?
Many would say you should take out the person who has never voted with you before, because at least the possibility exists for cooperation with the other player. However, in order to produce a playing field with the most rational players, which means their actions would be the easiest to predict, you should take out the wild card.
That is why this season, season 31, has a wild card in a girl named Abi Maria. She flips every single vote, but people are still trying to work with her. THIS IS BAD. She should be everyone's target, because her behavior is unpredictable and impossible to plan around.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
Day 19
Continued reading my book on game theory. Also began watching season 7, Pearl Islands, of Survivor. I have never seen this season before and I specifically want to highlight this season in my report as it was a groundbreaking one in terms of strategy.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Day 18
I went to California over the weekend and began discussing my thesis project with a guy named William, who is the founder of an online game called Survivor facebook. He is the show's producer, editor, and host, and has managed to get hundreds of people to participate and apply, including ormer survivor players. He told me that he can connect me with a former Survivor player, which would provide valuable first-hand knowledge for my research paper.
I am breaking down exactly how he goes about making this online game as a possible option for my final paper and/or product, which could potentially be creating my own game.
I am breaking down exactly how he goes about making this online game as a possible option for my final paper and/or product, which could potentially be creating my own game.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Monday, October 12, 2015
Day 15
Began reading the 48 Laws of Power today. Super interesting!
I have also began thinking about switching my final product idea. Originally I was set on writing a research paper but lately I've been wondering if maybe I could create my very own game. In it, I can use the game theory and sociological concepts I've read about to create a product in which those would be implemented. This is perfect to discuss with some people who I will meet in California on Wednesday who created their own online version of facebook and see where they advise me to go with it. Exciting stuff!
Also continued working on my annotated bibliography.
I have also began thinking about switching my final product idea. Originally I was set on writing a research paper but lately I've been wondering if maybe I could create my very own game. In it, I can use the game theory and sociological concepts I've read about to create a product in which those would be implemented. This is perfect to discuss with some people who I will meet in California on Wednesday who created their own online version of facebook and see where they advise me to go with it. Exciting stuff!
Also continued working on my annotated bibliography.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Day 14
I kind of feel stuck right now with my thesis. I am really struggling on where to go with my mentor. Luckily, I am going to California next week where I am planning on talking with a group of Survivor people so hopefully they can give me advice on where to go with my mentorship ideas.
Other than this continual issue, I began working on my annotated bibliography today. I am mainly using Rob Cesternino's The Evolution of Strategy as a HUGE source for the reality tv element in all this.
With regards to the more academic aspect of this, the books I am using as sources currently are:
- The 48 Laws of Power
- How to Win Friends and Influence People
- Game Theory: A very Short Introduction
Hopefully, I will spend this next week trying to gain more sources to reach 10 total.
I still need to pick up more social psychology books, so I need to narrow down my ideas on what exactly I want to study with that.
Other than this continual issue, I began working on my annotated bibliography today. I am mainly using Rob Cesternino's The Evolution of Strategy as a HUGE source for the reality tv element in all this.
With regards to the more academic aspect of this, the books I am using as sources currently are:
- The 48 Laws of Power
- How to Win Friends and Influence People
- Game Theory: A very Short Introduction
Hopefully, I will spend this next week trying to gain more sources to reach 10 total.
I still need to pick up more social psychology books, so I need to narrow down my ideas on what exactly I want to study with that.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Day 13
So lately I have been listening to more podcasts on Survivor. I've been trying to find a few that focus on the game theory aspect, as opposed to just the entertainment side of things. The Dom and Colin podcast is the one that has been the best for me. They really are focusing on when can be and what should be the most rational, self interested move.
One moment that really defines this specifically in Survivor lore is the final 6 tribal council in Blood Vs. Water. In the case of a tie vote, there is a revote. The people who received equal number of votes are unable to vote and every other person must vote between those two people. If the votes are still tied afterward, then everyone must "draw rocks." The people who received the tie votes are immune (in addition to the person who won the immunity challenge) and everyone else must draw the rocks. The person who draws the different colored rock is out. People always say they would never do this because it leaves your hands to fate as opposed to guaranteeing 3 more days in the game by merely switching your vote. But at this tribal council, every single person drew rocks because they reused to switch their vote, and had a 33% chance of randomly drawing the bad rock. This was absolutely the right move for everyone though because if they had not gone to rocks, one alliance would have systematically eliminated the other alliance and the person who flipped their vote would be guaranteed to be eliminated right before the finals. SO you are extending your stay by 3 days, but guaranteeing a 100% chance of being eliminated before the finals, wheras by drawing the rocks you stand a 33% chance of being eliminated that day, but if you wind up on top, and the other alliance draws the bad rock, you stand a 100% chance of making the finals.
It is always about playing the odds and playing to win, not about playing to extend your Survivor stay by 3 more days.
One moment that really defines this specifically in Survivor lore is the final 6 tribal council in Blood Vs. Water. In the case of a tie vote, there is a revote. The people who received equal number of votes are unable to vote and every other person must vote between those two people. If the votes are still tied afterward, then everyone must "draw rocks." The people who received the tie votes are immune (in addition to the person who won the immunity challenge) and everyone else must draw the rocks. The person who draws the different colored rock is out. People always say they would never do this because it leaves your hands to fate as opposed to guaranteeing 3 more days in the game by merely switching your vote. But at this tribal council, every single person drew rocks because they reused to switch their vote, and had a 33% chance of randomly drawing the bad rock. This was absolutely the right move for everyone though because if they had not gone to rocks, one alliance would have systematically eliminated the other alliance and the person who flipped their vote would be guaranteed to be eliminated right before the finals. SO you are extending your stay by 3 days, but guaranteeing a 100% chance of being eliminated before the finals, wheras by drawing the rocks you stand a 33% chance of being eliminated that day, but if you wind up on top, and the other alliance draws the bad rock, you stand a 100% chance of making the finals.
It is always about playing the odds and playing to win, not about playing to extend your Survivor stay by 3 more days.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Day 12
http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2014/09/02/guide-to-game-theory-books/#.VgwvQ_nVHGs
Came across this link today while researching about direction to head with my project. Will check out some of these books!
Mr. Correa mentioned that he sent out the mentor request form. Hopefully I hear back from someone.
My sister has met someone at USC deep in the Survivor universe. He frequently hosts viewing parties, has stimulated his own online version of Survivor, and has interned at CBS. I am going to try to talk to him and see if he could be a potential mentor or would have a better idea of who exactly could help me with my project.
Came across this link today while researching about direction to head with my project. Will check out some of these books!
Mr. Correa mentioned that he sent out the mentor request form. Hopefully I hear back from someone.
My sister has met someone at USC deep in the Survivor universe. He frequently hosts viewing parties, has stimulated his own online version of Survivor, and has interned at CBS. I am going to try to talk to him and see if he could be a potential mentor or would have a better idea of who exactly could help me with my project.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Day 11
Continued with my research on psychology. Learning more about how people influence and get the results they want. One example is classical conditioning. However, I think successful Survivor players work under operant conditioning in which they get their competitors to do what they want based off a reward/punishment system. This can come with either good grace in the group, jury votes, etc.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Day 10
dale carnegie advice so far in book:
-sincere appreciation
-look out for other's self interest
players i might study:
hayden moss
rob cesternino
The prisoner's dilemma is a canonical example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two purely "rational" individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so.
another potential mentor option: dom and colin of the dom and colin podcast. Because Rob fell through, i am forced to turn to another mentor. These guys have a very popular podcast in which they relate Survivor moves to game moves. Very analytical in their approach and super calculated. I might reach out to them and see if they would be interested in being a mentor.
-sincere appreciation
-look out for other's self interest
players i might study:
hayden moss
rob cesternino
The prisoner's dilemma is a canonical example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two purely "rational" individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so.
another potential mentor option: dom and colin of the dom and colin podcast. Because Rob fell through, i am forced to turn to another mentor. These guys have a very popular podcast in which they relate Survivor moves to game moves. Very analytical in their approach and super calculated. I might reach out to them and see if they would be interested in being a mentor.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Day 9
Link to Presentation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BznoWpBx3R51cl80eWhic3BtNFk/view?usp=sharing
Working Bibliography:
Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. Print.
- I have begun reading the above book. I am hoping to use this as a psychological resource for why certain Survivor layers have had more success in exerting their will over a situation versus someone who has been less successful. Fantastic read so far and am learning more about myself as a person. -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BznoWpBx3R51cl80eWhic3BtNFk/view?usp=sharing
Working Bibliography:
Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. Print.
- I have begun reading the above book. I am hoping to use this as a psychological resource for why certain Survivor layers have had more success in exerting their will over a situation versus someone who has been less successful. Fantastic read so far and am learning more about myself as a person. -
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Day 8
Listened to 6 Thesis Presentations today. They really helped me learn what exactly makes a good speaker. I need to avoid poor posture and avoid speech crutches such as "like" and "um." Had no time to work during class, but the book How To Win Friends and Influence People came into the library today and so I will pick it up tonight to begin reading it.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Day 7
Rob Cesternino responded to my mentor request. He said he would be happy to help me with my project but he was unsure if he would have the time to commit to such a project. I responded with an outline of the time commitment I would need. It has been several days now and unfortunately I have received no response. I am planning on waiting a few more days before sending a courtesy email and if I still do not hear back than I need to make plans for a new mentor.
Some other ideas I have would be:
Mr. Brown, the AP psychology teacher at school
Mike Holloway, winner of Survivor season 30 who lives in Dallas
Caroline Thomas, game theory specialist at the University of Texas
I have also filled out Mr. Correa's mentor request form in the hopes of hearing back from someone who has connections to one of my fields of study
I have also picked up copies of How To Win Friends and Influence People and The 48 Laws of Power in the hopes that they can be sources for some of the social psychology elements of my project.
Some other ideas I have would be:
Mr. Brown, the AP psychology teacher at school
Mike Holloway, winner of Survivor season 30 who lives in Dallas
Caroline Thomas, game theory specialist at the University of Texas
I have also filled out Mr. Correa's mentor request form in the hopes of hearing back from someone who has connections to one of my fields of study
I have also picked up copies of How To Win Friends and Influence People and The 48 Laws of Power in the hopes that they can be sources for some of the social psychology elements of my project.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Day 6
Today I presented my thesis to the class. Luckily there were not too many questions for me to clear up any confusion which means that I am on the right track
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Day 5
Accomplished Today:
- sent an email requesting mentor help from Rob Cesternino
- composed my speech for Thursday's presentation
- Began the powerpoint that I will use to accompany my speech during said presentation
- sent an email requesting mentor help from Rob Cesternino
- composed my speech for Thursday's presentation
- Began the powerpoint that I will use to accompany my speech during said presentation
Friday, September 4, 2015
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Day 3
I have officially sent out my email to my first mentor choice, Rob Cesternino. I am planning on emailing some more out today.
Seasons of Survivor I have seen:
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 12
- 13
- 16
- 18
- 21
- 23
- 25
-26
-27
-28
- 30
Seasons of Survivor I still need to watch for homework:
- 4
- 7
- 15
- 19
- 20
Books on Game Theory I have ordered from the Library -
- Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life
- Game Theory and Strategy by Philip D. Straffin
Seasons of Survivor I have seen:
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 12
- 13
- 16
- 18
- 21
- 23
- 25
-26
-27
-28
- 30
Seasons of Survivor I still need to watch for homework:
- 4
- 7
- 15
- 19
- 20
Books on Game Theory I have ordered from the Library -
- Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life
- Game Theory and Strategy by Philip D. Straffin
Friday, August 28, 2015
Day 2 - Brainstorming
Today I began researching game theory more in depth.
I am trying to have a broad view of where exactly I can go with my thesis project. The most obvious final project choice looks to be a paper where I go into the details about game theory specifically invoked in certain Survivor seasons. What makes this topic interest me so much is how intricate of a game Survivor can be, and if it can be simplified to basic elements.
My professional goal for this project is to determine if entertainment journalism would be a potential field choice for my career. My personal goal is to become a better writer throughout this project, and my educational goal is to learn more about social psychology and game theory.
I am trying to have a broad view of where exactly I can go with my thesis project. The most obvious final project choice looks to be a paper where I go into the details about game theory specifically invoked in certain Survivor seasons. What makes this topic interest me so much is how intricate of a game Survivor can be, and if it can be simplified to basic elements.
My professional goal for this project is to determine if entertainment journalism would be a potential field choice for my career. My personal goal is to become a better writer throughout this project, and my educational goal is to learn more about social psychology and game theory.
Judge/Mentor ideas: Rob Cesternino,
David McAdams (Duke University)
Curtis Taylor (Duke University)
Caroline Thomas (UT Austin)
David McAdams (Duke University)
Curtis Taylor (Duke University)
Caroline Thomas (UT Austin)
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Brainstorming - August 26, 2015
One thing that I have always said intrigued me as a career option would be journalism. However, unlike the idea most people jump to - someone covering campaigns and writing about how the world is in disarray (and here are the stats to prove it!), I would want to be an entertainment journalist. I am very passionate about writing and feel that would be a career path I would enjoy. Because of that, I want my thesis to incorporate entertainment journalism to a certain extent.
I am hoping to do my thesis over how game theory can be applied to competitive reality tv, specifically Survivor. I am intrigued by the psychology behind decision making and why people make the choices they do when placed in stressful situations.
With regards to ideas for mentors, I am a huge fan of Rob Has a Podcast. This podcast is hosted by Rob Cesternino who was a former player of Survivor. He is known for his strategic mind and breaking down the strategic moves each player makes throughout Survivor seasons. Though not a professional in game theory, I think he would be an awesome mentor to have for this project for the reality tv element.
I am also planning on reaching out to several professors at Duke University who specialize in game theory. They can advise me on the more academic side of this thesis project and help me realize the path to take to create a more intelligent approach to Survivor.
I am hoping to do my thesis over how game theory can be applied to competitive reality tv, specifically Survivor. I am intrigued by the psychology behind decision making and why people make the choices they do when placed in stressful situations.
With regards to ideas for mentors, I am a huge fan of Rob Has a Podcast. This podcast is hosted by Rob Cesternino who was a former player of Survivor. He is known for his strategic mind and breaking down the strategic moves each player makes throughout Survivor seasons. Though not a professional in game theory, I think he would be an awesome mentor to have for this project for the reality tv element.
I am also planning on reaching out to several professors at Duke University who specialize in game theory. They can advise me on the more academic side of this thesis project and help me realize the path to take to create a more intelligent approach to Survivor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)