[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic

Kate Marlow from the panel is a "performance coach"- not sure what that is or why her opinion is more valid than any other voter's, rachel is a psychologist (though she lacks objectivity) and mcgiffin, although I find her quite funny, is only providing her own opinion.

Kate Marlow - "Can I just say that in person, Linda, you are a beautiful and lovely person". This is in no way an objective assessment from a professional perspective as there is no evidence-based scale of loveliness, but a personal opinion.

Rachel (psychologist): "You made outing Jim Davidson as a fraud and a nasty person more important in some ways than playing the game in the house but I think what ended up happening is that you ended up giving Jim exactly what he needed to look like a victim and make you look like a harridan and a nagging b**** and I think that has got him a sympathy vote that he wouldn't have got otherwise. It's not your fault. You tried!" Not objective. Not professional.

This is a panel of individuals as valid in their opinions as any three plucked from the audience or the street. Bit on the psych is an utter fallacy. Three doctors playing table tennis cannot be promoted as a medical drama.

That in no way explains what you said, tell me more about this book you found so facinating....