Had he won immunity, although Richard would be guaranteeing himself a place in the final two, he would have to choose who would also be in the final two with him. He made a pact earlier in the game with Rudy that had either of them won the immunity challenge they each would take the other to the finale. However, Rudy was more liked by the jury than Richard and would beat Richard in the end, so therefore Richard did not want to take Rudy to the end.
Had Richard participated in the immunity challenge and won, he would be breaking his promise to Rudy if he chose to take Kelly to the end instead.
This decision would make Richard look dishonest to the jury, and therefore he may not get there votes to win. What I find interesting about Liar Game as well as Survivor and similar TV shows is the various mindsets people go into when playing games like this as well as the game theory used to win such games.
A fascinating analysis of the first season of Survivor and the strategy that Richard Hatch used can be found right here. Which brings me to the point of this post: does game theory have a role in education? Would it make sense to teach game theory to teach children about conflict?
To argue the other side, there are clear differences between game theory and its application in real life. Real life requires things such as fairness, compassion, justice, and mercy. It requires people to recognize that the game is unfair to many people and that everybody deserves a chance to play.
Contrast this to game theory, which is solely involved in figuring out how to win. After every round, the majority group is eliminated. These rounds continue until there is either 1 or 2 winners.
Even the million-dollar prize remains the same, inflation be damned. Each season, new twists, themes, and challenges were introduced to amp up the strategic component of the game, and the pure survival aspect receded into the background.
These days, there are so many surprise twists, so many complex game advantages and novel voting configurations layered onto the original premise, that the social-experiment element has been usurped by pure game play.
And Probst has finally decided to break the fourth wall, addressing the audience directly, as though he is conspiring with us. Circumstances have also forced recent seasons of the show to evolve along different, more complex social dimensions. In the past, any political differences among the cast could be edited out; major discussions about gender, race, class, or sexuality could be left on the cutting-room floor.
In , a trans contestant was outed by a fellow-castmate, which led to a public outcry and a condemnation from Probst, and, in , a male cast member was ejected from the show for inappropriately touching female contestants, prompting a discussion in the show that might have never seen the light of day fifteen years ago.
When the world was safe enough to resume filming on location, in Fiji, in early , the show faced a number of new constraints. Quarantine protocols meant that the usual thirty-nine-day filming period would be reduced to twenty-six. Is it too great of a betrayal to vote off a Black cast member in ?
Others focus on building alliances. Others purposefully lie and cheat their way to the top. In the end, everybody is competing for a big prize, the optimal payoff. Many typical reality competition tropes immunity, alliances, trickery entered the mainstream through the CBS show Survivor. The final three of the season were Richard, Kelly, and Rudy.
The last person to let go would gain immunity and actually pick the second finalist. At first thought, the set-up of the situation seems simple.
Richard, however, made a very bold choice to quit the challenge and wish the two other players good luck. He claimed he would never be able to outlast them. Though he may have appeared to diminish his chances of becoming a finalist in half, he actually played a smart game.
0コメント