Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Notts
Posts: 4,178
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Notts
Posts: 4,178
|
I didn't think the psychologists were that unbalanced in their views at all BUT I take it all with a pinch of salt, especially after a couple of crackers last year re: Paul and Helen
ie Week one: Helen tells Dean of her dream of being trapped in a bedroom with Paul, who won't let her out til she says she likes him
Psychologist: Helen obviously recognises something in Pauls character which reflects something she doesn't
like about herself
Dermot: Don't you think she just might fancy him?
Psychologist: Oh no, quite the opposite
Anyone with any sense will make up their own minds about these housemates.
It's not the Nobel peace prize, it's a game show. The stakes financially aren't even that high. I mean, GMTV are offering an £80,000 prize this week on their phone in.
The psychologists are perhaps being presented with fiercely edited stuff themselves remember.
It's not a scientific experiment. It's a cruel, manipulative, voyeuristic, gladiatoral endurance test.
This year, more than ever, they are in the lap of the Gods. The producers are playing with them like Zeus and Hera played with Jason and the Argonauts.
They are showered conversely with manna from heaven and famine. They are plied with copious alcohol. If they weren't all in there voluntarily it would be scandalous.
Don't get too upset by the psychologists. Some of what they say is true, some is mistaken. The only thing we know for sure is that people in extra-ordinary situations will act extra-ordinarily. However their natures do shine through.
I didn't take the 'smile hypothesis' about Kate as a criticism or an allegation of falseness. I took it as pointing out that Kate was apprehensive and putting on a brave face. I would have been too.
|