Hmm, I read a book once called "Everything bad is good for you" that theorized that Reality TV like Survivor or American idol was like Jeopardy for Emotional Intelligence. Essentially the enjoyment was in trying to read the contestants relationships with each other, their reactions to different events, and the environment around them to predict what was going to happen.
So in Survivor, the thought process might be that Person A is very likable but good at winning contests, while Person B is great at preventing fights but otherwise doesn't do anything helpful, and Person C is a dick but is the only one who can produce a particular luxury item. Which person is going to voted off? The thought process goes something like this:
- Everyone likes Person A, but since he's good at winning contests and getting immunity if the others don't vote him off they might not get another chance; of course voting him off would also mean fewer prizes for the group. Plus the voting players will feel bad if they kick him off.
- Some people don't like Person B, and she doesn't do anything useful, but she does help keep the peace, and since she doesn't do anything useful that means that she maybe she'll get voted off next time, potentially saving one of the voting players.
- No one really likes Person C, but she's able to fish/cook/do something else and so losing her would make life less pleasent. Of course not voting her off means still having to deal with her bitchiness, but maybe that will get her voting off next time also potentially saving one of the voting players. Then again, she'll still be useful then as well and so people won't want to vote her off, so maybe it's best to remove the threat now ...
If you start thinking about reality shows like that, they can become enormously complicated. I still don't like them, but they can be a good way to examine the reactions of actual people, albeit usually drama queens in implausible situations.
_________________
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.