Human Nature - The problem with people.

[TeeDee]

I was thinking about the whole TV survival show situation involving groups.

From Various iterations through the decades Castaway , Eden to the latest show Outcast

I've realised I've tend to find these shows entertaining if somewhat cringe as personalities mix and collide.

So what is it in the Human Psyche that makes us working together so difficult? ego alone? Too many wannabe leaders?

Whats the best way , in peoples actual experience , of ensuring a expedition type situation is successful? Cooperative? -or are group interaction under stress just the most likely scenario to see the flaws within ourselves?

 

[Wander]

Despite being called 'reality' TV, these kinds of programmes have nothing to do with reality.
Instead, they are crammed full of narcissists and attention seekers all believing they are the star and that everyone is second to them.
Consequently, they have no idea of what 'working together' means.
Yes, people like this do exist in everyday life, but not as concentrated.
You shouldn't be watching these kinds of programmes as in any way depicting real life or any kind of reflection on society whatso-sodding-ever.

 

[TeeDee]

Despite being called 'reality' TV, these kinds of programmes have nothing to do with reality.
Instead, they are crammed full of narcissists and attention seekers all believing they are the star and that everyone is second to them.
Consequently, they have no idea of what 'working together' means.
Yes, people like this do exist in everyday life, but not as concentrated.
You shouldn't be watching these kinds of programmes as in any way depicting real life or any kind of reflection on society whatso-sodding-ever.

True enough.
But if I looked around my own place of work there are clearly a broad range of personalities including some , more tricky ones , more attention seeking , more high drama etc etc.

And I have no doubt they may find fault with my own personality.

 

[Tengu]

People are all different.

The trick is to find everyone a role they fit into and can do.

That way they will work in harmony.

 

[C_Claycomb]

I don't know who they put into the group survival shows, but characterising them all as narcissist attention seekers might be a tad uncharitable.

In my experience, friction will occur when you put multiple alpha-type personalities who are used to being the leader into a group where there is no externally imposed hierarchy or obvious skill based criteria. Possibly even more so when there are also Beta type personalities who are also used to being leaders in their own right. Seen and heard about this on expeditions.

I don't doubt that they all know what working together means, and could probably manage well enough for a short while. Lots of people will do a day or so of team training where the erstwhile leader isn't the person usually in charge. For someone used to leading to cheerfully maintain a supporting role for days, when the stakes are high, is going to be a very different proposition.

I am not an alpha type personality, but after working for about six years with the responsibility allocating and directing work for a team on several projects, I ran into problems operating in a support role. I didn't want to be leader, was well aware who was making decisions, have plenty of experience in supporting roles, but I had picked up a number of behaviours / reactions that I wasn't aware of, which caused friction with the team lead.

 

[Bearmont]

Peace and harmony doesn't make for good TV, that's all there is to it. So they pre-select personalities that will create "entertainment". Further down the road people will then watch TV and take the reality they're being shown as "the reality". I have seen people act out the kind of silly pathology that is TV drama in person, it's similar to how we pick up on curse words our parents say to us and use them later in life when we're in a similarly confrontational situation. In that sense, "TV programming" is an interesting choice of words.

 

[MrEd]

I was thinking about the whole TV survival show situation involving groups.

From Various iterations through the decades Castaway , Eden to the latest show Outcast

I've realised I've tend to find these shows entertaining if somewhat cringe as personalities mix and collide.

So what is it in the Human Psyche that makes us working together so difficult? ego alone? Too many wannabe leaders?

Whats the best way , in peoples actual experience , of ensuring a expedition type situation is successful? Cooperative? -or are group interaction under stress just the most likely scenario to see the flaws within ourselves?

I do wonder if it’s down to the type of people that want to go on these types of shows - is it something in that personality type that comes out as flaws?

 

[TeeDee]

I do wonder if it’s down to the type of people that want to go on these types of shows - is it something in that personality type that comes out as flaws?

Maybe.

I do wonder what comes out of people even in simple corporate ( out of office ) activity days where normal social dynamic interactions tend to get wrong footed and stress tested with people acting sometimes differently.

A little bit of pressure testing can shake things up and get people reacting if a different manner.

 

[TeeDee]

I don't know who they put into the group survival shows, but characterising them all as narcissist attention seekers might be a tad uncharitable.

In my experience, friction will occur when you put multiple alpha-type personalities who are used to being the leader into a group where there is no externally imposed hierarchy or obvious skill based criteria. Possibly even more so when there are also Beta type personalities who are also used to being leaders in their own right. Seen and heard about this on expeditions.

I don't doubt that they all know what working together means, and could probably manage well enough for a short while. Lots of people will do a day or so of team training where the erstwhile leader isn't the person usually in charge. For someone used to leading to cheerfully maintain a supporting role for days, when the stakes are high, is going to be a very different proposition.

I am not an alpha type personality, but after working for about six years with the responsibility allocating and directing work for a team on several projects, I ran into problems operating in a support role. I didn't want to be leader, was well aware who was making decisions, have plenty of experience in supporting roles, but I had picked up a number of behaviours / reactions that I wasn't aware of, which caused friction with the team lead.

This isn't a loaded question because I'm unsure how I think/feel about the topic myself- but do you believe in the Alpha/Beta/Sigma etc type roles?

 

[SaraR]

It takes time for a good group dynamic to develop and for people to get to know each other well enough to work well together as a team. It also takes a lot of effort. It’s hard work and requires a bit of humility and self-reflection - two things that aren’t necessarily particularly easy or pleasant for many people.

 

[C_Claycomb]

@TeeDee
Maybe a bit unsure about how far one can take the idea, but it is obvious that some people are more confident, more assertive, less interested in being agreeable, more decisive, less prone to second guessing themselves. I used the term "alpha type personality" to describe those people. I am not sure what exactly you mean by "roles". In my experience, people with those traits often gravitate to positions suited to those characteristics. Guides and expedition leaders are a good example.

 

[MrEd]

Maybe.

I do wonder what comes out of people even in simple corporate ( out of office ) activity days where normal social dynamic interactions tend to get wrong footed and stress tested with people acting sometimes differently.

A little bit of pressure testing can shake things up and get people reacting if a different manner.

At work recently we have been doing something called MBTI (Mayers Briggs) which has been fascinating - it rather than splits into ‘leaders and non-leaders’ it highlights each individual persons MBTI type which the rest of the team can then recognise what things that person thrives on, and what puts them in a tailspin.

I was dubious at first but am now convinced, I have been on corporate type away day team building things but this is the first one that I have actually found beneficial both for understanding myself and my behaviours and my team.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation - MBTI® Certification Program

The Myers & Briggs Foundation - - MBTI® Certification Program

www.myersbriggs.org

 

[Wander]

I don't know who they put into the group survival shows, but characterising them all as narcissist attention seekers might be a tad uncharitable.

Maybe.
But I can't get away from the feeling that anyone who wants to be on TV (anyone) has to have a certain degree of narcissism in them. Maybe not at a clinical level, but certainly in the commonly held meaning of someone who is too full of themselves and their own self-importance.
Why else would you want to go on TV?
So, sorry, but anyone on TV does have an element of narcissism about themselves. Some far worse than others, admittedly. And these reality TV shows where they ask members of public to come forth and parade on TV for several weeks probably have more than their far share of misplaced confidence. We all know how manipulated these programmes are, and how people are chosen not on their skillset but on their ability to rub each other up the wrong way (that's why they don't get on TeeDee - it has nothing to do with being 'humans' but being these specific humans), and still people choose to go on, not because they have anything to offer but because they are such narcissists they believe they will be the one to shine through.
And I suppose they do, in a way. But not the way they would like or think they can control. Because they are narcissisists.

 

[crosslandkelly]

These "Reality Shows" are always set up for conflict. Conflict raises the viewing figures, which are all important to the producers of these shows. Viewers will quickly get bored of watching a group of people who can actually work together and get on.
Gladitorial tv.

 

[Harold Godwinson]

Interesting topic as I do love a good reality TV show.

Alone is my favourite but I've watched most of the others, to many to name over the years.

Two things always strike me as interesting... Firstly the level of skill shown by people and secondly the people selected for such shows.

Skills wise some people clearly under play their ability until the day... We've seen this in Alone many times.

Selection process to be on one of these shows is usually long and contestants have to go through many auditions and evaluations. Clearly the producers have to select the good, the bad and the down right crappy. The good are selected for content and so the show will run its duration and they will entertain those in the know. The bad are the middle ground, some skills but not enough to last so they keep things ticking alone. And the last bunch, well they are cannon fodder, they are the day two tappers that make the rest look good.

On group shows they will always select one or two 'nuts' and as many caustic types as they can to prevent the vary thing the show is trying to achieve i.e a working team. Harmony makes dull TV.

What really makes me sad with these shows is I wonder how many really good people aren't selected because of the ability, looks,, Mental positivity etc.

At the end of the day it's not really real, it's just TV and there to help while away the hours until the next overnighter.

 

[SaraR]

So, sorry, but anyone on TV does have an element of narcissism about themselves. Some far worse than others, admittedly.

That's possibly true for reality TV and the like, but some people have to appear on TV occasionally for work or feel obliged to accept a one-off invitation to engage with TV because they are funded by public money and many/most of those would rather not.

 

[Wander]

Well, yes - those appearing as an expert on an event/press conference/etc are clearly an exception.
I was talking about those who voluntarily put themselves in front of the camera (i.e. quiz shows, reality TV, 'magazine' programmes, etc). Although I'd probably put most presenters, news readers, and other such pundits in that category as well. They don't need to be there - they have chosen to put their gurning faces in front of us because...well, because they think they should be listened to and want you admiring them and talking about them.

 

[Harold Godwinson]

I wonder how much the prize money helps too?

Clearly thousands of people sign up for these shows and are whittle down to just a dozen or so by casting criteria not all of whom just want to be on TV?

That said we hear it all the time now how people see TV work as a easy way to make their fortune instead of busting a gut working hard for a living.

One thing aside, or to be said for some of these shows is they do bust a few myths regarding bushcraft and survival. For instance a multitool is often preferred to a knife. They also enforce some too, outlast (the new one) each team was given a knife, axe, saw, tarp, blanket and cooking pots i.e the basic kit.

 

[TeeDee]

Maybe.
But I can't get away from the feeling that anyone who wants to be on TV (anyone) has to have a certain degree of narcissism in them. Maybe not at a clinical level, but certainly in the commonly held meaning of someone who is too full of themselves and their own self-importance.
Why else would you want to go on TV?
So, sorry, but anyone on TV does have an element of narcissism about themselves. Some far worse than others, admittedly. And these reality TV shows where they ask members of public to come forth and parade on TV for several weeks probably have more than their far share of misplaced confidence. We all know how manipulated these programmes are, and how people are chosen not on their skillset but on their ability to rub each other up the wrong way (that's why they don't get on TeeDee - it has nothing to do with being 'humans' but being these specific humans), and still people choose to go on, not because they have anything to offer but because they are such narcissists they believe they will be the one to shine through.
And I suppose they do, in a way. But not the way they would like or think they can control. Because they are narcissisists.

Open question then - so when the members of this forum attend a large scale group meeting / event does everything go without friction?

Or are some characters and egos larger than others?

 

[Jared]

Think some go for the challenge of it, pretty much the safest way to try it when have TV show resources available.

Think the biggest impediment is percieving someone as not pulling their weight. When tired & struggling gets real easy to start pointing fingers. Happened in Castway NZ, and most recently 100 Days Wild.