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.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)