"Survivor" premiered in May 2000, and represented the dawn of a new era of reality TV that took the formula from previous offerings like MTV's "Real World" (unscripted chaos among ordinary Americans) and added a new twist, that of austere conditions and arduous challenges. Naively, I thought to myself that the show would reward sheer brawns and brains; I mean, the title of the show seemed to suggest that the winner would be the one that could physically and mentally outlast the others.
Sure enough, some of the early people "voted off the island" were those that either lacked the ability or motivation to contribute to the community's ability to make it through the night. But along the way, something else kicked in. Those that found success and ultimately won were those who could form alliances, build trust, backstab when advantageous, and among all things have a very good understanding of whether they had enough votes to live to play another day.
Life is not a reality show in which we're stranded on a desert island and left to fend for ourselves. But the human nature observed on "Survivor" is the same that governs how we behave in civilization.
Some of us had cultural upbringings and educational resources that allowed us to view the world as a place where if we worked hard and played fair, we would find success. Others of us had a less sheltered childhood existence, left to fend for ourselves, learning the code of the streets in the process. The former is a solid foundation for a respectable existence. The latter is woven over and under that, sometimes dooming people to a harder life and sometimes allowing people to soar to the very highest levels of power and wealth.
As noted above, early people voted off on "Survivor" were those who were deemed least able or willing to contribute to the group's survival. But, later on, it was often the opposite: those who were physically and mentally strongest to contribute were also seen as the greatest competition for the prize, and so it made sense for others to gang up on them and compel a sufficient number of votes to eliminate them from the competition. Which, as harsh and illogical as that might sound, actually makes the most sense, because it is clear if you have opted to play this game that the goal is not for the group to thrive but for you to win.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions about pockets of your life that resemble this dynamic. I'll only say, in closing, that after having told a similar story from my career journey to a group of college students, I left them with a frank statement of: whether you like it or not, there is an aspect of life that is like a game, and that game has rules, and some of those rules are not fair, so you will have to decide whether you want to play the game or not, or change the game or not, but there will be consequences to whatever you choose.
However cynical and harsh that might be for a young person just starting out at university to hear, I feel it is a fair and helpful sentiment to convey. It is a hallmark of our modern democracy that we balance rule by the majority with protection of the minority, which is to say that those who have more votes get to be in power, and we have checks and balances in place to make sure that power isn't used to punish those out of power.
We have a conflicting feeling about power, in that it is easy to abuse and easy to covet, but that doesn't substitute for the fact that if you want to get something done you have to have power, and if you want to have power then you need to do things to get it. Which, I learned from "Survivor" over 25 years ago, isn't necessarily being the strongest or smartest, but rather being able to seek, count, and secure votes.





.jpg)




.jpg)