Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
People aren't being taken in by him. I can't believe you take it so seriously. It's a game show. We have seen many unattractive aspects of his behaviour: being grumpy, narky, moody, and more. Like everyone else, he is masking the worst aspects of his personality. We've also seen him being kind, supportive, funny and long-suffering and truthful enough to say on camera that he's on his best behaviour because it's a show, and that if he showed his real personality he'd be booted out the first week. I would also put the martyred floor-sleeping Jim into the positive category.. Absolutely priceless.
The psychologists on BOTS are basically there to be a light-hearted, funny and a bit of fluff. They merely give their opinion - it's not gospel, and you cannot take anything they say as the final word and the only aspect to any person or situation. The last psychologist, who was also female, spoke of him very warmly and saw him as kind and nurturing. No-one is either black or white - we're all shades of grey. You can choose to filter out all the positives things about Jim and only see the negative. Others see both positive and negative, or simply vote for the person who brings most to the series or causes most drama.
I personally have been far more intrigued by him than by anyone else on the show. I've watched some footage of him on Youtube and read a few articles about him. I've been trying to suss him out. Conversely, at the beginning of the series, I saw right through Linda, and knew she'd soon be sitting in a huddle, ripping some poor person to shreds. If it hadn't been Jim, it'd have been someone else. She pretends she's caring, but in my opinion, she doesn't actually care about anyone except herself. And people will eventually clock on. Maybe Jim cares about nobody but himself too, but he's smarter than she is and I'll be surprised if she isn't out before him, despite her having the strongest alliance in the house.
|
Bravo. "Dr" Pam Spiers' assessment didn't fill me with much confidence. Seemed very biased and judgmental and the examples cited didn't necessarily qualify as evidence for her opinion.