ambivalent imbroglio home

« Survivor Dilemma | Main | Good news from the MPRE! »

December 13, 2005

What's wrong with you people!?

Ok, so I was waiting to see the big Survivor finale until after my final final of the semester. That's over now. It was decidedly mediocre. I sense a potential C in my future. Do I care? Sure. Am I moving on? Duh.

So let me just get right to it: I'm appalled! How could so many of you think it was perfectly ok for Cindy to give up the chance to give four cars away!? I guess I'm just totally out of it, but my answer was Option 3 -- both 1 & 2. The choice was selfish, greedy, and stupid. And look here, people, Heather Havrilesky agrees with me, so I must be right. ;-)

That Havrilesky piece was almost funny to read because it so closely mimicked the conversation L. and I had as we watched last Thursday's episode of Survivor. I'd seen a preview for this show so I knew the choice that someone was going to face. I told L: “This is going to be good. Someone is going to win a car and then they're going to have to give it up.” Why? she asked. “Because if they give it up, they can give the other four players a car each so of course they have to give it up.” Havrilesky was obviously thinking the same thing:

OK, chickens. Answer me this: Who pauses to think at this point? What kind of a mind wraps itself around that question and comes up with any answer other than “I'll give up the car, Jeff!” Four people get brand-new cars, four people, one of whom has never owned her own car in her entire life. Who could even consider taking a new car for herself, knowing that she cheated four people out of that experience?

And that's without factoring in the millions of people watching. When you consider all those people out there, millions of people, lots of them young and impressionable, watching as you decide between doing the right thing, or doing the selfish thing?

As we watched the show and saw that Cindy was not doing what we expected, we were appalled. We went through the same analysis as Havrilesky—it was both strategically and morally stupid to keep the car:

“But hey, it's just a game,” you say, so let's cast all moral considerations aside and consider the game. No matter how they feel about you, I guarantee you that the other contestants would be physically unable to vote you out, after you gave them all cars. By giving up your car, you might just have won yourself a million dollars -- you'd at least have a great shot at it.

And then you throw in the long-term picture: You give up the car, and millions of people are watching. Here's what happens next: 1) Everyone at camp loves you, and feels a personal sense of obligation to make sure you make it into the final three at the very least, 2) everyone at home goes “Awww, that was so nice of her!” which means that 3) you'll be sitting down with Katie Couric and Matt Lauer and God knows who else to discuss your huge, generous heart, which means that 4) you'll demand a good sum as a public speaker for a few years and 5) you might just earn a hefty sum for appearing in a few print ads and, hey, even if you don't want any of that stuff 6) you can spend the rest of your life with your head held high, knowing that you did the right thing.

Now let's look at what happens when you keep the car: 1) Everyone at camp instantly dislikes you, and for a very good reason, 2) everyone at home goes “Ewww” and tries to pry your mean little face out of their minds forever, 3) you get voted off at the next tribal council, 4) not even the host of “The Early Show” on CBS really wants to speak to you, 5) your 15 minutes of fame are reduced to five minutes and 6) you spend the rest of your life known as the Selfish, Morally Bankrupt Idiot Who Sold Her Soul for a Pontiac.

This is exactly what we were thinking. And then Havrilesky summed it all up:

Look, we're all busy and we all have our own factories to run, usually with limited resources. But it's downright disconcerting how different we are from each other, ethically. That reward challenge wasn't a choice, it was just a veiled opportunity, courtesy of the producers, to do something generous and honorable, if not just to appear generous and honorable. Seeing someone turn down that chance is like wandering into your neighbor's house and finding a herd of preteen girls sewing together Gap sweatshirts until their fingers bleed.

But then, shock of all shocks, a majority of (the admittedly small number of) readers of this blog made the same choice Cindy made. What were you people thinking? I obviously couldn't hack it on Survivor so I guess it's a good thing I never applied. I'm thinking it's time I finish that damned application, though. Someone needs to be there to save humanity from the savages. Meanwhile, I'm loving the Survivors Strike Back blog written by previous contestants. It's a good thing I didn't learn about this sooner or my grades this semester would have been even lower.

So people, please: Explain to me how you justify your choice in the previous poll. Why was Cindy right? I just don't get it.

Posted December 13, 2005 12:15 AM | 3L tv land


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mowabb.com/mt32/mt-tb.cgi/4953

I am not that into the show and just happened to catch that episode, so I was viewing the dilemma purely from the standpoint of the game. "Hey, she won a car," I thought. "Good for her."

I still think it would not have bit her in the ass so hard if she'd just shut her mouth about it afterwards. You're right, though, from a moral standpoint it was an indefensible choice.

Posted by: Sui Generis at December 13, 2005 09:26 AM

Let's say you give the four people the cars. Now they have only one morally defensible choice: to let you win. If you can't defend taking one car and not giving another, you can't defend reciving a car, and then screwing that person out of the grand prize.

That's where morality failed in this sense. She may be selfish, but the others would have been stoned if they had done what I would have done after reciving the car: rationalized that the producers gave it to me, and sent her packing immediately.

Posted by: Taco John at December 13, 2005 09:42 AM

I also agreed with the Havrilesky piece...it is a solid analysis. In other Survivor news A friend of mine from Television Without Pity sent me this link
http://www.rekal.net/lostmanthey/index.html

have other people seen this?

Posted by: john at December 13, 2005 04:47 PM

Sui G: I couldn't agree w/you more about the way Cindy dug her hole deeper by coming back to camp and talking about the car incessantly. She totally lost her ability to read people. My theory is that she closed down and became self-absorbed so that she didn't realize how others were reacting as a defense mechanism b/c she knew what she had done was seriously lame and that she was on her way out. Of course, that's just my psych 101 take on it and what do I know?

John: That's funny. I realize that much of Survivor is an elaborate ad for its sponsors, but, well, that's tv, right? Why oh why do I watch at all!?

Posted by: ambimb at December 15, 2005 10:37 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.