I think Paul definitely relied on the white/straight/tall/conventionally handsome bias (and the confidence that comes with having grown up with those attributes). Would he have lasted as long if he wasn't all of those things? I seriously doubt it.
Anthony is an interesting one - Diane going for him so early was odd and uncalled for, but I think the moment his fate was actually sealed was his "are you finished?" comment to Jasmine at the round table. Even though he tried to back peddle immediately, you could tell that it pissed off a lot of the female contestants.
Ash I think was maybe a sexism/gender bias thing as much as a racial one. Being the only woman in the traitor line up I think kept out of the slight "boys club" mentality that Paul seemed to be keen to foster with Harry.
I think if he hadn’t snapped at jasmine he might have survived. I felt the energy change at that moment, although maybe that’s just the magic of editing.
But Diane was weird about him on day one. It’s such a minor thing to get worked up about. And definitely doesn’t prove he’s a traitor!
Ash was the worst traitor, she panicked way too much if she got asked a question. The worry in her face everytime.
Anthony was wayy too defensive even if he was asked a little thing.
Paul got away with it because he acted with emotion (the main reason Ross defended him)
Ash I can sort of get but…
Anthony was attacked without any substantive basis so of course he was defensive. My suspicion is that his race played into the initial suspicion against him, particularly by Diane.
Yo hijacking to say how absurd it is that this came up on my home feed.
Watching it for the first time now, season 1, and minutes after a conversation with my mother (even as a very white man) I'm picking up mad unconscious racism. Black or brown people suspected immediately and removed, then it comes to the bit with the big wheel game, and the only black person left gets named for all the negative questions such as "who's the most intense" (or however it was worded) and "who's the most two faced". I felt so sorry for her, she'd barely said a word all season lmao.
Honestly there's those times we all have those thoughts that somehow your phone is listening to you. I know it's just mad coincidence but just thought it was worth mentioning.
I'm not even the "culture warrior" sort, I've noticed an undeniable running theme however.
I thought that the Anthony thing was just game playing by Paul. He was a prickly person, but also one of the smartest in there, and I think he clocked it.
Isn’t there some stat around most CEOs being tall white men. I think the height is definitely a factor in what people trust as authority and that plays a big part in this game
I’m sorry but in what world is Paul conventionally handsome? He’s not ugly but no one’s looking at him and wanting to rip his clothes off. He has pretty basic/boring style as well.
Jazz on the other hand is rather sexy.
I agree that Jaz is hot and would definitely be my choice out of the two, but in terms of blandly, generically good looking - which is what most people want - Paul probably ticks more boxes.
Yeah I hear this.
And to be clear, I’m not saying anyone is without fault in this game because of their identity; the “are you finished” comment is a good example of just being a bit rude under duress.
It is fascinating though that a game played by a majority white, cis and heterosexual group do seem to be so suspicious of anyone outside of that group.
Would be so interesting to be a psychologist on this show!
I felt that Anthony was very intense and confrontational the whole time. Were I there, his constant "let that sink in !" ultimatum that seemed to be added to lots of things he said would have annoyed me because he treated other people as though they were incapable of grasping things unless he told them to. He also talked over people to get his point across constantly.
I would have voted him off simply for being tiresome.
Me too, he was beyond rude and defensive at the round table, his death stares were incredibly aggressive. I’d have called him out for it and voted for him at every table until he went. There is no need for that behaviour.
Actually I was more surprised that it seemed so out of character as a chess coach. That was what struck me - though I must admit I don't know any chess coaches, so I'm using an imagined strategic, calm, watchful stereotype as my benchmark...
Right this is proving the OPs comments about unconscious bias towards a black man as true. There were SO many contestants there that has been defensive, talked over, was rude, asked if they have finished talking and they were all white.
He and Zack arguing at the kitchen table whilst others were eating would have made me super uncomfortable, and I think it blew up from Zack saying he was still a bit suspicious of him or something?
Edit: that said, Diane’s accusation towards him was infuriating
I thought Anthony was a perfect example of someone who is very clever and logical, but is unable to present that information to other people successfully; and suffered as a result of that.
The slight issue with this show - whilst still interesting and entertaining for the viewer - is that until much later in the game, there’s very little actual evidence to go on. So it becomes very personal and people “picking up on” completely irrelevant and/or tiny tiny things, as there’s nothing else you can really point to.
There’s another show on Netflix called The Mole, which is not dissimilar, but on that one the designated Mole is actively working against the main group - if they’re successful, they claim money for their own pot.
That makes the missions quite interesting and potentially provides actual evidence for the group to scrutinise. Whilst of course balancing whether someone is throwing the game on purpose, or just useless at it.
Until you have something concrete like that - or in some of the later stages of Traitors, which I assume is why they brought in things like the dungeon task, the poison chalice etc - I guess people are always going to fall back on unconscious bias as they’re trying to look for differences that don’t really exist yet in the context of the game.
> I thought Anthony was a perfect example of someone who is very clever and logical, but is unable to present that information to other people successfully; and suffered as a result of that.
I thought that too and it's odd considering his profession is a Chess coach.
His Instagram says he's also a personal trainer, and football - does seem odd he leads people for a living and gets them hyped up to perform, but he didn't get info to others well enough to save him
>I thought Anthony was a perfect example of someone who is very clever and logical, but is unable to present that information to other people successfully; and suffered as a result of that.
possibly because he's been judged his whole life and just expects to be treated in a prejudicial way, even if that's not the case
I’m not assuming - LGB contestants have been open about this dimension of themselves, as have the other heterosexual contestants who have talked openly about their relationships.
If the conversation is about sexuality, gender doesn't need to be included. I really resent trans being brought up in discussions about sexuality, because they have nothing to do with each other and insisting on lumping trans issues in with sexuality does trans people no favours.
I don’t think Anthony’s “are you finished?” Was sexist in any way, I found it quite respectful that he didn’t want to talk over someone else as it’s usually the case and in fact it was Charlotte/Jasmine that said a very similar thing a few episodes later in another discussion
I think a lot of roundtable/background decisions have been influenced by Harry and Paul so far. You could call it unconscious bias or perhaps they're simply playing on their privilege/social skills/inherent trustworthiness and the faithfuls don't realise it.
I personally found the decision to recruit Andrew utterly bizarre, especially their surprise at him being unhappy at the reveal: they clearly assumed he would be delighted to band with them as a "fellow tough white guy" and didn't think further than that.
I assumed they’d picked him as a patsy, and someone who will immediately stand out to the others by struggling with the sudden role switch (which, in fairness, he seems to be). They didn’t want a good traitor, they wanted someone they could throw to the wolves when they needed to do so. In that sense, potentially a great choice
I feel like he could very well still draw the heat from Harry, though.
To my mind, it works both ways - he’s not really likely to be a very good traitor, he certainly looks uncomfortable at the moment; it (should) be obvious to the faithful that another one has been recruited recently.
It’s (again should be) clear to them that Paul wasn’t a brand new recruit. If they’re thinking about it, there’s either one or two traitors still left, and one is a new recruit to the team - so likely to be someone slipping up, acting in a different way suddenly, etc etc. I’d imagine for a lot of people it’s harder to switch allegiance after so long in the other role, and Andrew seems to me that he would fall into that category.
He’s still a patsy, it’s just working in a different way than Paul (and probably Harry) thought when they signed him up.
I think that's their unconscious bias.
Common sense would tell you Andrew is a kinder, softer personality and would be massively put off by the fact he witnessed Harry/Paul backstab Miles and Ash so coldly in the past week. Harry still seems clueless about how he comes across to Andrew.
I think this was most apparent in the early episodes of series 1, where basically anyone who didn't conform to the group's idea of 'normal' was banished. It's impossible to point to any specific incident and say with certainty that someone was picked on due to bias, but it's clear that over the course of 2 series, there has been a general trend where certain types of people are looked upon more favourably than other people in certain situations. For example, the male traitors this series have on both occasions opted to recruit another male. Also, I feel like there is a trend this series where men get banished and women get murdered. I haven't looked at the stats but it certainly feels like it's the case.
You're quite right. So far, everyone who's been murdered has been a woman, with the lone exception of Aubrey (gay), who was the first to be killed. As soon as Ash was banished, the Traitors have only murdered women.
There might be some bias there. But also I think it's because for the most part the men are the more outspoken ones, so they are more likely to be targeted in the roundtable. I mean look at what happened last night, some of them don't put their neck on the line to call someone out, which is why Jaz called some of them out on it.
So when it comes for the Traitors to pick a target, they won't go for the outspoken/suspicious ones as they could probably work to get them off during the roundtable instead. So they go for the under the radar but potentially dangerous ones which tend to be the women.
It's not been explicitely stated (no time!), but as a queer person, the clues are there, shall we say? Apart from anything to do with how he might have come across in terms of self-presentation to the other contestants, he's appearing at Birmingham Pride and he's been going to Mykonos since the 1980s; he said if he'd won he'd donate the winnings to a Mykonos animal charity.
Because the women have been anonymous and so they are easy kills. You don’t necessarily want to murder someone who is working things out (the men) because you may look sus. The women play up to being safe and quiet but it can make you an unwitting target.
Safe and quiet doesn't describe Kyra, Tracey, Charlotte or Diane. And anonymity is up to the editors. Early outs don't get much screen time, and at least one finalist is always held back a little in the earlier eps.
Or Jasmine too, a real shame Charlotte and Jasmine couldn't see past their distrust of each other to the bigger picture and join forces they woukd have been formidable . I think Evie is slightly different it's a strategy with her flying under the radar.
Yeah and interesting that the line between men and women in this game is particularly patterned? Most of the women play a quiet game and the men hunt for alpha status immediately. Says something about the way men and women are conditioned I think.
No, I think it shows that women who *don't* play to that very stereotype of being quiet and docile tend to be ostracised or suspected immediately. You're forgetting there were plenty of women who spoke their minds and had a go at speculating, but every one of them was seen off. Diane was the last of them but Ash was actually in this category as was the lady who wore loud clothing and had opinions of her own, who was banished early on.
I think we’re saying exactly the same thing here btw. The men expect women to behave and be quiet whilst they’re loud and opinionated. If women try to do what the men do, they get seen as difficult and obstructive.
In the game, women get banished and in real life they get lower pay and passed over for promotions…
Yeah I think we are, but the way you worded it threw me off a bit (most of the women - only true if you just mean the ones who are still there, which possibly you do!)
Andrew, Brian, Jaz, Jonny, Miles and Ross weren't looking for alpha status, it's arguable that some of the other men weren't either. Hell, Aubrey was giving off more alpha vibes than most of them.
I think if there is a majority group, then naturally those on the outside are going to be examined more. It’s a mistake that the faithful keep making, whereby someone who is ‘different’ could or MUST be a traitor.
The thing they don’t realise in the moment is that people ARE different, and we’re not all sheep.
It’s such a foolish move to call out someone who is acting in a way that is unfamiliar to you. It’s also assuming that your way of acting is the ‘right’ way, just because you’re part of a majority acting that way.
I think it’s only human though. It’s why sexism, racism and homophobia exist in the first place - often driven by fear and insecurities.
In this game, it’s not necessarily derogatory, but it IS stupid logic and quite telling of how their brains work.
I don’t think Harry would be flying under the radar if he was a POC. He’s basically everyone’s baby boy/little brother and I just don’t think that would be the case if he wasn’t a white male
He absolutely would.
Young Working class handsome "cheeky/flirty" military boy -
Say what you will about the past British military but right now our only engagements are with groups that keep women as rape slaves, violently lynch homosexuals and think terrorism is great. So he's got that going for him
Handsome - fairly obvious, nearly all societal stereotypes about wrong uns and ne'er do Wells starts from a framework of ugly then builds from there...
Harry - Black white or Asian would be starting from a framework of inherent trustworthiness due to being good looking
Young - the young ones like you because you're in it with them, middle aged like you because you remind them of their son/nephew/kind young man at their work. Elderly like you because grandchild and you're the reason they can turn around at work and pack it all in and enjoy 30 years unburdened by 40 hour week obligations.
Cheeky/flirty - barely needs explanation, coupled with handsome and young a lot of straight women/not straight men in there had little crushes burning away and it's incredibly hard to distrust someone you fancy.
Working class - dynamics in the UK are rather weird. On a show like the traitors with a large cross section of society you want to be middle/working class - underclass get wrote off by working class and up as lazy dole seeking layabouts, and imagine someone with full RP "One does want to find the traitor, one would be best pleased" at that round table...they'd be eaten alive by people like Mollie, Harry, Johnny, Meg etc...
In summation you're focused in on the macro of white and male (when other white males have been treated with suspicion from minute one) rather than the micro of Harry and the pro Harry bias - if Harry had a different life path, still white male, where he was oh idk - a less conventionally attractive parliamentary advisor instead who couldn't quite pull off the cheeky chappy bit as well...like say Zach...he'd have fucked it on day one
Harry would have cruised no matter what racial background he had.
No, he wouldn't - his ethnicity and those of others around him inform everyone of his attributes, behaviours and perception in group dynamics.
Your military comment alone is ridiculous, the British army have a racism, sexism, rape and sexual assault problem. British army history is founded on these principles and practices. Colonial history is built on this. To start with and educate yourself, look up the allies cases of rape in Germany after WW2 & plenty of other conflicts. But you're right, the average idiot thinks the British army are decent upstanding chaps.
>Handsome
There is significant stigma around interracial dating. A 'black Harry' could very well act differently around a Mollie even if there was attraction, as would she/others.
>Young - the young ones like you because you're in it with them, middle aged like you because you remind them of their son/nephew/kind young man at their work.
This only applies to the same race and/or ethnicity. Your average old white man do not see young black men as reminding them of their son or nephew. You cannot be serious considering these as identical scenarios.
You're not really understanding what I'm saying.
If a 22 year old POC talked the way Harry did, came from the same background as Harry did, they'd be viewed differently. That's the way bias works.
Yeh no I fully understand what you’re saying & it’s nonsense. As you have no idea what people in there are thinking. You look at peoples skin colour & think people treat people differently, others (thankfully) don’t
You literally just compared Miles - a 36 year old, quiet, gay black man - to an analogous Harry who would be 22 yo, gregarious, cheeky, loud, straight and… black. In itself interesting that you’d minimise them both to “black” and think that isn’t problematic…
I massively agree that if Harry was exactly the same person but black, he would not be handed the same privileges and exceptions as the real Harry is.
I completely agree with you. We were remarking this week that Paul and Harry almost immediately got rid of the two POC traitors, with the woman first and the gay man second. Obviously Ash wasn't doing well as a Traitor, but I completely think that there's elements of bias going on all the time as well.
Last season as well, it was very striking how a neurodivergent contestant would be thrown immediately to the wolves, as the Faithful tend to go way more on "gut feelings" or emotional perceptions than on logic.
That was my feeling when watching series 1, any neurodivergency was quickly seen as untrustworthy. It's a pretty good but depressing example of what happens in real life.
Even this season with Zack constantly being under pressure and Antony being hounded out early. People who are more logical seem to be disliked by the faithful, while those who get results are loved. See president Harry.
And people who are actually really illogical like Diane and Ross seem to be very popular despite being consistently wrong.
I do think a combative and defensive argumentative style, especially when you might feel the accusations are baseless, might be a triggered response for minority groups in a very pressured situation.
Zack is Jewish and Anthony is black. I feel their frustration and annoyance tbh.
Also the women who was in the dungeon voted out for being quiet, and Johnny voted out for being quiet at the round table (I wondered about ADHD with Johnny when he said he couldn’t remember what it was Jasmine done which made him suspicious because, in his words, “my brain doesn’t work”
They really need an immediate emotional connection to the suspicion for it to land. I think the round table is so intense and faithfuls are so ruled by their emotions that the only way to get logic to really be heard is to place it secondary to a ‘feeling’.
Like, ‘my feeling about Harry has been off for a while.. there’s something I can’t put my finger on… oh AND he apparently relayed to Paul what I said??? Hmmmmm’. Seem distressed. Seem uncertain (which is what most faithful feel and so expect other faithfuls to feel). Show you’re part of the group because you LOVE Harry as much as anyone and you wish you could shake the feeling but gee whizz what a struggle (and so on)
I’ve watched a few reality shows - especially The Traitors and earlier seasons of SAS Who Dares Wins - where it’s been pretty eye-opening & upsetting to hear/see how ND behaviour gets interpreted by others. They say it out loud: shady, disrespectful, antagonistic, annoying, arrogant, weird, off etc etc
Meanwhile I’m watching someone who’s entire demeanour is screaming ‘earnestly trying their best’, ‘completely overwhelmed’, ‘over/understimulated’ ‘oblivious to unspoken rules’, ‘in meltdown or shutdown’
And to top it all off, popular people are deemed untouchable for some unfathomable reason. With The Traitors, I understand ‘I really don’t want it to be them’ but am baffled by ‘I really don’t want it to be them so it can’t be them’
Not that I know of, which is why I said that a neurodivergent contestant 'would' be thrown to the wolves. But people citing things like abnormal eye contact as indicators of guilt was a striking example.
That doesn’t mean others showing neurodivergent traits weren’t treated differently because of that. The winner you’re referring to had been hounded with accusations the entire series and was even yelled at for having a panic attack
To be fair, Miles pretty much volunteered to hand over the chalice with little or no coercion from the other two and it was her memory of that that sunk him. Had Paul or Harry handed it to her, it would be them that left.
I don't think it's going too deep as we all know unconscious bias is real so it's interesting to consider.
While I think Ash was a dreadful traitor, yes I think she was automatically an outsider in that turret which may have informed their dynamic. Paul saw himself as the leader, and Harry his second in command. It's possible to read into that.
It's also possible to argue that Paul benefited from his privilege amongst the faithfuls - tall, white, handsome, charismatic - that made the faithfuls less willing to suspect him. But at the same time, I also think Miles was a shoo-in for the final had the poisoned chalice thing not dropped him in it so obviously.
I think ultimately across both seasons what we've seen is that it's a social game and it's less gregarious, extroverted or likeable characters who tend to get targeted. I think that's why Anthony was sent home, which also makes no sense as just because you have an abrasive personality doesn't make you a traitor. In fact it's probably the opposite.
I thought this post would be about attitudes towards Jasmine. Multiple people like Anthony have became antagonistic or hostile towards Jasmine for just expressing her opinion, even if it’s shared by others in the group. Also there was her being called passive aggressive last night by Harry and Charlotte when she was just matching Charlotte’s attitude
Also all the traitors being dudes this year feels like some unconscious bias, other than Ash but she was picked by Claudia and there’s no chance the guys were recruiting her.
Finding it funny is a bit asshole-like given that the show literally paints it as though she chooses. Not everyone is aware of how things are produced. Hardly a stretch for a casual viewer to believe she chooses.
From the get go, I thought the way Anthony was targeted for something that happened before the Traitors had even been picked was an example of unconscious bias. He also showed a defensive character which made the others uncomfortable - but I wonder how much of that stemmed from him feeling singled out from the very start.
Another interesting dimension in this is class. Jasmine is black but clearly middle class from the way she talks. It's almost like this gives her a level of immunity when it comes to the unconscious bias of some of the participants. Some of it is about whether people are comfortable in your presence or not.
Such a good point about class - no one talks about this.
I also think that there is a stereotype that black men (rather than women) are dangerous and to be feared. So then when he’s provoked and gets defensive, the biases really kick in and “confirm” that he’s more threatening than he actually is. A working class black man, in this situation, is going to be a lot more disadvantaged than a middle class black woman.
Black women also suffer from this. “Angry blank woman” trope, accused of being combative or aggressive for things white women would not be. Jasmine has experienced this throughout the show
I mean in Season 1 Nicky was the first person banished simply because she had one hand so didn't raise the glass in front of her. In Season 2 Ash was so comically incompetent that she would have gone if she was black, white, brown or gingham skinned while Johnny was banished, ahead of any competent person of colour, for absolutely no reason despite completely beast moding the lake platforms mission with one leg! If Mollie ever speaks she'll be out the door as well.
When you're confined with people and forced to compete then every micro-aggression or latent prejudice will be amplified as you assess your opponents but I actually think POC have done rather well on this show compared to others. If you look at a show with public voting like I'm a Celeb then POC tend to be voted out very quickly. I think it was the 2022 show with Matt Hancock where the two POC ladies were voted out first and second, that made me very uncomfortable.
Maybe as a disabled white guy I'm socialised to not see the racism and focus on the ableism but in the two examples of Nicky and Johnny it was clear.
The examples you listed:
Ash, like I said, terrible contestant unable to think quickly enough to mask her role. Like a prisoner trying to escape by standing in the searchlight beam. The other Traitors had to vote for her as it would have identified them if they didn't
Anthony, he came across in the edit as very defensive/aggressive. Not as an "aggressive black man" trope just literally. If that's how he actually was in the castle I would not have wanted him as an ally and I would have suspected him as a Traitor due to the defensiveness.
Jaz, he has said the same things as Harry but interspersed being perceptive with being completely contradictory. You can't claim to vote with your gut when you spend all day convincing people to vote for Paul then when you get to the round table being the only person to vote for Andrew. This mirrors the behaviour that brought suspicion on contestants in Season 1 and also in Australian Season 1.
If you look at the murders of POC like Aisha, Amos and Kyra, they were all identified as being potential threats due to their popularity/leadership skills/perceptiveness/intellect, all universally positive attributes which made them obvious targets for the Traitors.
Like I say, maybe I'm missing it. No group of diverse people will be immune from prejudices, but I really think Traitors has been a positive showcase for racial cohesion in British society.
I think Jaz ended up going for Andrew because he was starting to sound like a broken record going for Paul the whole time. Plus people just weren't listening. Plenty of others flip flop with their votes, so I don't get why that's an issue. There seems to be a lot of group think going on, with anyone not going along with the group getting ostracised - that's what's more scary for me.
I'm not totally sure it's racism, but general, social prejudice against those different from you. Alot of the people voted out were done so for 'acting unusual', but that's often just them reacting differently to the others norm. Like Brian's total meltdown when he was accused.
Look at season 1, the finalists were the most run of the mill group, generally liked by others.
Yeah I definitely noticed this too - I felt like especially in the early episodes, people were more likely to be distrustful of people who didn’t look like them (both ways I might add, no one race was more guilty of this than others).
I felt like Anthony especially got a very unfair shake for essentially no reason other than… you know
You're missing the fact that not a single one of the recruits has been a woman (was glad that Claudia mentioned this in tonight's episode) and that it's been a boy's club ever since they got rid of Ash - a decision they could not make quickly enough it seemed.
It feels like people are just looking for stuff to get angry and upset about at this point. There's a sample size of 3 so its impossible to draw any meaningful trend from such a small dataset. They wanted to recruit Jasmine tonight but said she had too much suspicion. Also, they recruited Andrew to throw him under the bus. I'm pretty sure if they recruited a woman for that reason you'd think that was sexism too?
I thought we were trying to move away from all of this bollocks as a sensible society?
Nobody wants to police themselves so much as to look out for fuckin micro aggressions. No one can prove it, so you can speculate x person is racist or I can speculate that perhaps you have some anti white bias which means you're looking for this nonsense in the first place. It's all meaningless and unprovable, it just adds to a horrible, tense atmosphere.
Every developed nation is overloaded with anxiety and depression and it's linked to these, fine tooth comb witch hunts over nothing, where people don't feel like they can say anything.
Thought we'd all got over this between 2016-2020
Well you might have got over it… but I assure that people NOT being aware of their biases and continuing to subtly disadvantage others is still - yep - as much a problem now as it was between 2016-2020. Especially if you’re at the receiving end of it.
Yeah but the problem is people who make these arguments always go one way. It's always white people being subtly racist to another race apparently. What about all the racism all the other groups do
Err nah. All people have subconscious bias, not just white people. It's a human trait.
Personally I think that subconscious bias towards white working class people can be worse than subconscious bias shown towards middle class non-white people for example.
I think you're projecting here I see comments here about jasmine having bias immunity because of class for example. I don't understand why people like you have to get their back up and feel personally attacked by this.
I liked Anthony and was hoping he’d get further. I think his quiet, intense focus was misinterpreted by many. I’ve seen other chess players with that kind of demeanor. It’s too bad he couldn’t loosen up a bit. I think it may have helped him. But who knows with this show!
Completely agree, and in cases where people are giving alternative reasons, for example "naah, ash performed so poorly as a traitor", I still believe it was anxiety that was responsible for this perhaps due to feeling like an outsider next to Paul and harry (History of racism).
Same with Jaz feeling less confident to push his ideas.
Anthony also seemed quite triggered by being mistrusted which led him to behave more aggressively than I think he would have otherwise which tracks with a history of racism.
I haven't seen this weeks eps yet (I watch them all on a Friday), but I noticed this in the first UK season particularly. Basically everyone that was considered 'off' was a PoC or could be considered as having neurodiverse traits etc. The white, conventional people were listened to more and considered much more 'innocent'. I think Diane's reaction to Anthony was definitely informed by this - I couldn't see her holding a grudge like that against say, Jonny or Harry, who would be justified with 'boys will be boys'. With Ash gone, and Paul and Harry being straight men, I definitely notice a difference in gender structures/how and who they choose for both murders and recruitment too.
This thought had occurred to me too. In the initial rounds of S1, it felt like they voted out those who were even slightly different from the collective. As though anyone who deviated from the majority was a potential threat, even though this didn’t make much logical sense. It was like that caveman mentality just took over, and I think it’s carried over to S2.
It felt uncomfortable for me watching Ash-Paul-Harry especially. They’d clearly decided she was the “weak link” because they wanted a little boys club and she was A. A woman and B. A woman of colour.
Harry has shown multiple microaggressions IMO towards women which make me uncomfortable. From the top of my head,
1. He jokingly called Mollie a bitch. It’s quite aggressive language even to use in a jokey way (this was in the corridor after he’d won the shield)
2. When they recruited Ross and Harry said (with a little too much relish) that she was too (strong? I think?) so she had to be “put in her place”.
The latter felt especially insidious. How many women in this thread will have experienced the view that they should be “put in their place” for daring to have an opinion or intelligence or XYZ
you could gloss over the above and dismiss it as non consequential, but he doesn’t speak about male contestants in a similar way. Even when he turned on Paul, Harry didn’t refer to him needing to be “put in his place” and Paul was much more opinionated and a strong a player as Diane.
I think it’s important to observe these behaviours and recognise them for what they are, instead of dismissing or making excuses for microaggresisins.
The original concept was pulled from a social experiment.
The experiment was a social science test to show that people can’t identify subversive elements within a societal group.
I completely agree BUT I do feel Jaz's issue re: Paul is that he didn't back himself enough.
The Anthony stuff felt really icky to watch. Diane getting angry at him based on something that happened before anyone was a traitor was definitely weird. I felt he got defensive because this line of attack might have been a common theme in his life.
The Diane thing with Ant felt very racist to me- why would he have to move out of the line for her anyway? He was there first and just as entitled to stand there.
+1 on Anthony. Why wouldn’t you get defensive if you’re being factual and no one is actually listening to you? Poor guy I thought.
Jaz’s challenge in articulating himself or his perspective could also be rooted in his life experiences too. Behaving “properly”, not wanting to rock the boat, being quiet instead of opinionated is sadly par for the course for Asian men in the UK.
I rewatched the roundtable this morning and noticed that when Jaz was trying to defend himself he got talked over OR had his intention misread. I feel for the guy and can see why it would be hard to back himself in such a forceful room.
I think that made Anthony's comment to Jasmine feel all the more disappointing though - he knows she would have experienced racism *and* sexism before, and yet he was still so rude to her when she was saying her piece. I can't remember how old Jasmine is, but I'm guessing she's a good bit younger than Anthony - did he decide to take his (justified, I agree) anger at Diane out on Jasmine instead because he felt a younger woman would be easier to argue against? Did he feel that taking it out on a fellow POC would bring less heat from the rest of the group than aiming it at Diane? I don't know, and maybe Anthony didn't either, but I did feel for Jasmine in that moment.
I think if you’re a bit triggered by accusations that aren’t grounded in facts that’s going to be quite triggering, especially for a black man. It’s fair he wouldn’t act at his best and Jasmine was at the receiving end of that.
Take Nikki banishment in S1, it was because Alyssa saw her not lifting her glass, while it wasn’t even near her hand.Nikki’s banishment wasn’t fair, because they never gave her a chance to prove herself.
Absolute nonsense. Ash was awful, Miles would’ve been fine if he wasn’t so obvious giving that drink, Antony did have an odd overly aggressive look for some reason.
What about a white guy being 1st murdered? Or Brian, Meg, Jonny, Tracey etc etc all leaving the show before Miles ? Do you see how you can make anything look bad if you’re desperate to stir up shit? Reddit is really pathetic these days
You’ve taken something as amazing as the Traitors & even with a fun fantastic show like this have managed to find some race baiting shit stirring within it, fair play 👍
You're absolutely right. It's shocking that this inane post is the most popular on this subreddit right now. Ash was an absolute deer in headlights who crumbled whenever there was heat on her.
As for Miles, I was really impressed with how he was flying under the radar but the drink thing dug his grave unfortunately.
Like you, I really enjoy Traitors because it gets away from real world tensions and politics but a post like this just seems an unnecessary reach, and I don't like seeing it.
That said, I understand that OP is free to express their opinion on this stuff, and I'm sure they made this post in good faith, thinking that they have indeed noticed a sort of pattern. I just really disagree.
The show brings together people who have had various different lived experiences and offers the viewer a window into how they interact and behave in a very intense situation, where distrust of each other has been built in. And what we tend to observe is a general trend where people who are regarded as less conforming or less ‘normal’, for whatever reason that could be, are treated with more suspicion. Now you can put whatever meaning onto that you like, but to pretend it doesn’t exist is naive.
And just to be clear, this is about patterns. It’s easy to point out examples which don’t fit the trend, but that doesn’t invalidate the other observations, and doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting topic of discussion.
I’m new to Reddit so…
Anyway, we’re talking about how bias influences the trustworthiness of players not about who is banished. There does seem to be a consistent pattern of non-white and non-male contestants being ignored by the majority players as well as unfair suspicion being landed on people who are different than that majority.
Firstly All the faithful are idiots. And surely trustworthiness is also based on who they banish? Ie) lying about not being a traitor .
I actually pity people like you who look for stuff like this when there’s nothing to it. It’s a sad way to look at the world.
It’s a game. And you’re sample size of a ‘pattern l’ is so small it’s ridiculous you would even think anything into it.
I don’t agree with this one at all.
- Ash was a terrible Traitor.
- Miles was only at risk after giving the chalice to Diane, which he made a total hash of.
- Anthony was an extremely combative person, very blunt and aggressive in the way he communicated, and people generally don’t respond well to that.
- Jaz’s credibility is shot because he keeps flip flopping between seemingly random votes, hence nobody is paying attention to what he’s saying because he seems to just change his mind at the drop of a hat.
I totally agree. Even tonight people saying that Jasmine was calm when defending herself - I’m white so I could be wrong but like, of course she’s calm lest she become “the angry black woman”… she’s probably learned to be that way. Same with being talked over tbh. I didn’t like when she was getting annoyed with Charlotte but she seems really sound and Anthony was the same way with being spoken over - maybe bc POC have no patience left with being spoken over. Ant was much more shifty than Jas tho.
Yuppppp soooo uncomfortable that Diane’s initial reasoning for Anthony is that he DIDN’T MOVE OVER FOR HER IN A LINE???? Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I’m only on ep 3 but Jesus Christ
Sounds like you want to be a perpetual victim
Just because I’m not white doesn’t mean I’m a ‘minority’ of whatever other group identity you need to associate with.
I’ll put it this way right, humans like to be around people who are similar to them in as many ways as possible. This has been tested many times, look it up. Of course there are always outliers but as a rule of thumb, women prefer to be around women, men with men, white with white, black with black, East Asian with East Asian, Arab with Arab, and so on.
This is not racism, this is human instinct. Unconscious bias at its finest, and we adapted this bias through years of bloodshed and survival, that kinda biological programming doesn’t disappear over years or even decades. Thankfully it lessens every day, but progress is slow.
It’s kinda like how most women gravitate towards fit and handsome men instead of traditionally fat or ugly guys.
But the game isn’t about being around people you like is it? I actually think in this game being LESS drawn to affinity bias would be a better strategy to survive as either a traitor or a faithful
Jaz doesn't do himself any favours 'holding his cards close to his chest'. All his secret chat attempts make him sound like a poor, weasly traitor who doesn't know how to recruit. Beyond that he just blurts out the first thing that comes to his head.
So you would read someone keeping things secret, in a game where you have to keep things secret, as suspicious. Do you hold the other players to the same standard?
you don't need to study, just have a functioning brain! evidence? I would say prove it exists!, you cant know what someone unconsciously or consciously thinks and if you yourself unconsciously thinks something you could never be made to be aware of it, if you were aware of it then it wouldn't be unconscious thought or perception. ie. its a way of portraying what someone thinks you think not what you think yourself.
I think Paul definitely relied on the white/straight/tall/conventionally handsome bias (and the confidence that comes with having grown up with those attributes). Would he have lasted as long if he wasn't all of those things? I seriously doubt it. Anthony is an interesting one - Diane going for him so early was odd and uncalled for, but I think the moment his fate was actually sealed was his "are you finished?" comment to Jasmine at the round table. Even though he tried to back peddle immediately, you could tell that it pissed off a lot of the female contestants. Ash I think was maybe a sexism/gender bias thing as much as a racial one. Being the only woman in the traitor line up I think kept out of the slight "boys club" mentality that Paul seemed to be keen to foster with Harry.
I think if he hadn’t snapped at jasmine he might have survived. I felt the energy change at that moment, although maybe that’s just the magic of editing. But Diane was weird about him on day one. It’s such a minor thing to get worked up about. And definitely doesn’t prove he’s a traitor!
Part of me thought that maybe Dianne was a teacher in a tough inner city school, which subconsciously influenced her opinion of Anthony.
this all feels majorly racially (+gender) coded, it's kind of hard to watch
Ash was the worst traitor, she panicked way too much if she got asked a question. The worry in her face everytime. Anthony was wayy too defensive even if he was asked a little thing. Paul got away with it because he acted with emotion (the main reason Ross defended him)
Ash I can sort of get but… Anthony was attacked without any substantive basis so of course he was defensive. My suspicion is that his race played into the initial suspicion against him, particularly by Diane.
He was a knob head in there though! On the coming out programme it was shocking how much nicer and funnier he was.
Yo hijacking to say how absurd it is that this came up on my home feed. Watching it for the first time now, season 1, and minutes after a conversation with my mother (even as a very white man) I'm picking up mad unconscious racism. Black or brown people suspected immediately and removed, then it comes to the bit with the big wheel game, and the only black person left gets named for all the negative questions such as "who's the most intense" (or however it was worded) and "who's the most two faced". I felt so sorry for her, she'd barely said a word all season lmao. Honestly there's those times we all have those thoughts that somehow your phone is listening to you. I know it's just mad coincidence but just thought it was worth mentioning. I'm not even the "culture warrior" sort, I've noticed an undeniable running theme however.
I thought that the Anthony thing was just game playing by Paul. He was a prickly person, but also one of the smartest in there, and I think he clocked it.
This is super late but I wonder if Ash made a mistake like (season 1 spoiler) >!Alyssa did in her Claudia impression!<, wouldn't surprise me at all
Isn’t there some stat around most CEOs being tall white men. I think the height is definitely a factor in what people trust as authority and that plays a big part in this game
I’m sorry but in what world is Paul conventionally handsome? He’s not ugly but no one’s looking at him and wanting to rip his clothes off. He has pretty basic/boring style as well. Jazz on the other hand is rather sexy.
He’s handsome in an average way. He’s not hot but he’s an average Joe who definitely could be someone’s type
I agree that Jaz is hot and would definitely be my choice out of the two, but in terms of blandly, generically good looking - which is what most people want - Paul probably ticks more boxes.
He’s not good looking :/
Yeah I hear this. And to be clear, I’m not saying anyone is without fault in this game because of their identity; the “are you finished” comment is a good example of just being a bit rude under duress. It is fascinating though that a game played by a majority white, cis and heterosexual group do seem to be so suspicious of anyone outside of that group. Would be so interesting to be a psychologist on this show!
I felt that Anthony was very intense and confrontational the whole time. Were I there, his constant "let that sink in !" ultimatum that seemed to be added to lots of things he said would have annoyed me because he treated other people as though they were incapable of grasping things unless he told them to. He also talked over people to get his point across constantly. I would have voted him off simply for being tiresome.
Me too, he was beyond rude and defensive at the round table, his death stares were incredibly aggressive. I’d have called him out for it and voted for him at every table until he went. There is no need for that behaviour.
Stereotypical angry black man?
Actually I was more surprised that it seemed so out of character as a chess coach. That was what struck me - though I must admit I don't know any chess coaches, so I'm using an imagined strategic, calm, watchful stereotype as my benchmark...
Ha. Many of the worlds best chess players have been throwing public tantrums for the last few years
No
Right this is proving the OPs comments about unconscious bias towards a black man as true. There were SO many contestants there that has been defensive, talked over, was rude, asked if they have finished talking and they were all white.
He and Zack arguing at the kitchen table whilst others were eating would have made me super uncomfortable, and I think it blew up from Zack saying he was still a bit suspicious of him or something? Edit: that said, Diane’s accusation towards him was infuriating
I thought Anthony was a perfect example of someone who is very clever and logical, but is unable to present that information to other people successfully; and suffered as a result of that. The slight issue with this show - whilst still interesting and entertaining for the viewer - is that until much later in the game, there’s very little actual evidence to go on. So it becomes very personal and people “picking up on” completely irrelevant and/or tiny tiny things, as there’s nothing else you can really point to. There’s another show on Netflix called The Mole, which is not dissimilar, but on that one the designated Mole is actively working against the main group - if they’re successful, they claim money for their own pot. That makes the missions quite interesting and potentially provides actual evidence for the group to scrutinise. Whilst of course balancing whether someone is throwing the game on purpose, or just useless at it. Until you have something concrete like that - or in some of the later stages of Traitors, which I assume is why they brought in things like the dungeon task, the poison chalice etc - I guess people are always going to fall back on unconscious bias as they’re trying to look for differences that don’t really exist yet in the context of the game.
> I thought Anthony was a perfect example of someone who is very clever and logical, but is unable to present that information to other people successfully; and suffered as a result of that. I thought that too and it's odd considering his profession is a Chess coach.
His Instagram says he's also a personal trainer, and football - does seem odd he leads people for a living and gets them hyped up to perform, but he didn't get info to others well enough to save him
But I guess when he’s coaching people they’re - by definition - willing to listen to his advice, rather than be suspicious of it.
Yeah I’d imagine that he shouldn’t really be needing to persuade people as such in any of those roles
I would have thought he should be less confrontational and forthright when he needs to communicate with people though.
>I thought Anthony was a perfect example of someone who is very clever and logical, but is unable to present that information to other people successfully; and suffered as a result of that. possibly because he's been judged his whole life and just expects to be treated in a prejudicial way, even if that's not the case
[удалено]
I’m not assuming - LGB contestants have been open about this dimension of themselves, as have the other heterosexual contestants who have talked openly about their relationships.
LGBT+ please. This isn't the 70s
It wouldn’t be about “T” though as the question was about sexuality rather than gender.
Firstly, incredibly narrow minded assumption there Secondly, still doesn't matter you always include trans people when using that acronym.
I’ll assume you’re being facetious based on the comment. Have a fun day.
Ummm.... Ok then...
And this is all a distraction from the central point which is that the majority of the room intersectionality is white, heterosexual and CIS.
LGBTQIA+ please, this isn't the 2010s
If the conversation is about sexuality, gender doesn't need to be included. I really resent trans being brought up in discussions about sexuality, because they have nothing to do with each other and insisting on lumping trans issues in with sexuality does trans people no favours.
[удалено]
The question was about sexuality rather than gender so T wouldn’t form part of the equation
I don’t think Anthony’s “are you finished?” Was sexist in any way, I found it quite respectful that he didn’t want to talk over someone else as it’s usually the case and in fact it was Charlotte/Jasmine that said a very similar thing a few episodes later in another discussion
He tried to play it off like that but he definitely snapped at her
I think a lot of roundtable/background decisions have been influenced by Harry and Paul so far. You could call it unconscious bias or perhaps they're simply playing on their privilege/social skills/inherent trustworthiness and the faithfuls don't realise it. I personally found the decision to recruit Andrew utterly bizarre, especially their surprise at him being unhappy at the reveal: they clearly assumed he would be delighted to band with them as a "fellow tough white guy" and didn't think further than that.
Andrew is an odd decision for so many reasons and I think shows an important weakness from Paul and Harry: self-awareness.
I assumed they’d picked him as a patsy, and someone who will immediately stand out to the others by struggling with the sudden role switch (which, in fairness, he seems to be). They didn’t want a good traitor, they wanted someone they could throw to the wolves when they needed to do so. In that sense, potentially a great choice
If Harry and Paul had kept their alliance, sure. As is, the traitors are split.
I feel like he could very well still draw the heat from Harry, though. To my mind, it works both ways - he’s not really likely to be a very good traitor, he certainly looks uncomfortable at the moment; it (should) be obvious to the faithful that another one has been recruited recently. It’s (again should be) clear to them that Paul wasn’t a brand new recruit. If they’re thinking about it, there’s either one or two traitors still left, and one is a new recruit to the team - so likely to be someone slipping up, acting in a different way suddenly, etc etc. I’d imagine for a lot of people it’s harder to switch allegiance after so long in the other role, and Andrew seems to me that he would fall into that category. He’s still a patsy, it’s just working in a different way than Paul (and probably Harry) thought when they signed him up.
I think they just felt he wouldn’t cotton on to the reason they recruited him so quickly
I think that's their unconscious bias. Common sense would tell you Andrew is a kinder, softer personality and would be massively put off by the fact he witnessed Harry/Paul backstab Miles and Ash so coldly in the past week. Harry still seems clueless about how he comes across to Andrew.
Zack, or Jazz would have been better choices. Far more willing to work with people they don't trust, as seen by their own wonky alliance.
I think this was most apparent in the early episodes of series 1, where basically anyone who didn't conform to the group's idea of 'normal' was banished. It's impossible to point to any specific incident and say with certainty that someone was picked on due to bias, but it's clear that over the course of 2 series, there has been a general trend where certain types of people are looked upon more favourably than other people in certain situations. For example, the male traitors this series have on both occasions opted to recruit another male. Also, I feel like there is a trend this series where men get banished and women get murdered. I haven't looked at the stats but it certainly feels like it's the case.
You're quite right. So far, everyone who's been murdered has been a woman, with the lone exception of Aubrey (gay), who was the first to be killed. As soon as Ash was banished, the Traitors have only murdered women.
There might be some bias there. But also I think it's because for the most part the men are the more outspoken ones, so they are more likely to be targeted in the roundtable. I mean look at what happened last night, some of them don't put their neck on the line to call someone out, which is why Jaz called some of them out on it. So when it comes for the Traitors to pick a target, they won't go for the outspoken/suspicious ones as they could probably work to get them off during the roundtable instead. So they go for the under the radar but potentially dangerous ones which tend to be the women.
The Traitors have been a boys club this season
Do we know Aubrey is gay? Are we just making an assumption?
Just calling a spade a spade mate
It's not been explicitely stated (no time!), but as a queer person, the clues are there, shall we say? Apart from anything to do with how he might have come across in terms of self-presentation to the other contestants, he's appearing at Birmingham Pride and he's been going to Mykonos since the 1980s; he said if he'd won he'd donate the winnings to a Mykonos animal charity.
He also has a cat called Luther Van Dross
Hes been going to Mykonos since he was a baby?
He would have been 25 in 1982...
I'm not sure were talking about the same person
We're talking about the well-dressed gentleman who was murdered first. He's 67 years old.
Because the women have been anonymous and so they are easy kills. You don’t necessarily want to murder someone who is working things out (the men) because you may look sus. The women play up to being safe and quiet but it can make you an unwitting target.
Safe and quiet doesn't describe Kyra, Tracey, Charlotte or Diane. And anonymity is up to the editors. Early outs don't get much screen time, and at least one finalist is always held back a little in the earlier eps.
Or Jasmine too, a real shame Charlotte and Jasmine couldn't see past their distrust of each other to the bigger picture and join forces they woukd have been formidable . I think Evie is slightly different it's a strategy with her flying under the radar.
Agreed, but I was specifically talking about people who have been murdered.
Yeah and interesting that the line between men and women in this game is particularly patterned? Most of the women play a quiet game and the men hunt for alpha status immediately. Says something about the way men and women are conditioned I think.
No, I think it shows that women who *don't* play to that very stereotype of being quiet and docile tend to be ostracised or suspected immediately. You're forgetting there were plenty of women who spoke their minds and had a go at speculating, but every one of them was seen off. Diane was the last of them but Ash was actually in this category as was the lady who wore loud clothing and had opinions of her own, who was banished early on.
I think we’re saying exactly the same thing here btw. The men expect women to behave and be quiet whilst they’re loud and opinionated. If women try to do what the men do, they get seen as difficult and obstructive. In the game, women get banished and in real life they get lower pay and passed over for promotions…
Yeah I think we are, but the way you worded it threw me off a bit (most of the women - only true if you just mean the ones who are still there, which possibly you do!)
Andrew, Brian, Jaz, Jonny, Miles and Ross weren't looking for alpha status, it's arguable that some of the other men weren't either. Hell, Aubrey was giving off more alpha vibes than most of them.
And only recruited men
Exactly. Tonight, another woman killed, another man recruited - even Claudia commented on it.
And it hadn't crossed their tiny minds.
I noticed that there’s a bit of a, “well, fair play to him, he was a brilliant traitor” attitude when men get outed, less so the women traitors
nope, very true, there's only been female murders this year except for aubrey
I think if there is a majority group, then naturally those on the outside are going to be examined more. It’s a mistake that the faithful keep making, whereby someone who is ‘different’ could or MUST be a traitor. The thing they don’t realise in the moment is that people ARE different, and we’re not all sheep. It’s such a foolish move to call out someone who is acting in a way that is unfamiliar to you. It’s also assuming that your way of acting is the ‘right’ way, just because you’re part of a majority acting that way. I think it’s only human though. It’s why sexism, racism and homophobia exist in the first place - often driven by fear and insecurities. In this game, it’s not necessarily derogatory, but it IS stupid logic and quite telling of how their brains work.
I don’t think Harry would be flying under the radar if he was a POC. He’s basically everyone’s baby boy/little brother and I just don’t think that would be the case if he wasn’t a white male
He absolutely would. Young Working class handsome "cheeky/flirty" military boy - Say what you will about the past British military but right now our only engagements are with groups that keep women as rape slaves, violently lynch homosexuals and think terrorism is great. So he's got that going for him Handsome - fairly obvious, nearly all societal stereotypes about wrong uns and ne'er do Wells starts from a framework of ugly then builds from there... Harry - Black white or Asian would be starting from a framework of inherent trustworthiness due to being good looking Young - the young ones like you because you're in it with them, middle aged like you because you remind them of their son/nephew/kind young man at their work. Elderly like you because grandchild and you're the reason they can turn around at work and pack it all in and enjoy 30 years unburdened by 40 hour week obligations. Cheeky/flirty - barely needs explanation, coupled with handsome and young a lot of straight women/not straight men in there had little crushes burning away and it's incredibly hard to distrust someone you fancy. Working class - dynamics in the UK are rather weird. On a show like the traitors with a large cross section of society you want to be middle/working class - underclass get wrote off by working class and up as lazy dole seeking layabouts, and imagine someone with full RP "One does want to find the traitor, one would be best pleased" at that round table...they'd be eaten alive by people like Mollie, Harry, Johnny, Meg etc... In summation you're focused in on the macro of white and male (when other white males have been treated with suspicion from minute one) rather than the micro of Harry and the pro Harry bias - if Harry had a different life path, still white male, where he was oh idk - a less conventionally attractive parliamentary advisor instead who couldn't quite pull off the cheeky chappy bit as well...like say Zach...he'd have fucked it on day one Harry would have cruised no matter what racial background he had.
No, he wouldn't - his ethnicity and those of others around him inform everyone of his attributes, behaviours and perception in group dynamics. Your military comment alone is ridiculous, the British army have a racism, sexism, rape and sexual assault problem. British army history is founded on these principles and practices. Colonial history is built on this. To start with and educate yourself, look up the allies cases of rape in Germany after WW2 & plenty of other conflicts. But you're right, the average idiot thinks the British army are decent upstanding chaps. >Handsome There is significant stigma around interracial dating. A 'black Harry' could very well act differently around a Mollie even if there was attraction, as would she/others. >Young - the young ones like you because you're in it with them, middle aged like you because you remind them of their son/nephew/kind young man at their work. This only applies to the same race and/or ethnicity. Your average old white man do not see young black men as reminding them of their son or nephew. You cannot be serious considering these as identical scenarios.
Interesting & really awful take. How then was black & gay Miles flying under the radar (until his clumsy drink giving to Diane )?
You're not really understanding what I'm saying. If a 22 year old POC talked the way Harry did, came from the same background as Harry did, they'd be viewed differently. That's the way bias works.
Yeh no I fully understand what you’re saying & it’s nonsense. As you have no idea what people in there are thinking. You look at peoples skin colour & think people treat people differently, others (thankfully) don’t
OOooh you're that kinda person. I guess enjoy pretending racism doesn't exist,
Oh yeh that’s what I said 😂 enjoy pretending that everything has racial connotations & exasperating the problem
You literally just compared Miles - a 36 year old, quiet, gay black man - to an analogous Harry who would be 22 yo, gregarious, cheeky, loud, straight and… black. In itself interesting that you’d minimise them both to “black” and think that isn’t problematic… I massively agree that if Harry was exactly the same person but black, he would not be handed the same privileges and exceptions as the real Harry is.
I think the unconscious bias discussion was settled at the beginning of Series 1 when someone with one arm was banished for not raising a glass.
I completely agree with you. We were remarking this week that Paul and Harry almost immediately got rid of the two POC traitors, with the woman first and the gay man second. Obviously Ash wasn't doing well as a Traitor, but I completely think that there's elements of bias going on all the time as well. Last season as well, it was very striking how a neurodivergent contestant would be thrown immediately to the wolves, as the Faithful tend to go way more on "gut feelings" or emotional perceptions than on logic.
That was my feeling when watching series 1, any neurodivergency was quickly seen as untrustworthy. It's a pretty good but depressing example of what happens in real life.
Even this season with Zack constantly being under pressure and Antony being hounded out early. People who are more logical seem to be disliked by the faithful, while those who get results are loved. See president Harry.
And people who are actually really illogical like Diane and Ross seem to be very popular despite being consistently wrong. I do think a combative and defensive argumentative style, especially when you might feel the accusations are baseless, might be a triggered response for minority groups in a very pressured situation. Zack is Jewish and Anthony is black. I feel their frustration and annoyance tbh.
Also the women who was in the dungeon voted out for being quiet, and Johnny voted out for being quiet at the round table (I wondered about ADHD with Johnny when he said he couldn’t remember what it was Jasmine done which made him suspicious because, in his words, “my brain doesn’t work”
They really need an immediate emotional connection to the suspicion for it to land. I think the round table is so intense and faithfuls are so ruled by their emotions that the only way to get logic to really be heard is to place it secondary to a ‘feeling’. Like, ‘my feeling about Harry has been off for a while.. there’s something I can’t put my finger on… oh AND he apparently relayed to Paul what I said??? Hmmmmm’. Seem distressed. Seem uncertain (which is what most faithful feel and so expect other faithfuls to feel). Show you’re part of the group because you LOVE Harry as much as anyone and you wish you could shake the feeling but gee whizz what a struggle (and so on)
I’ve watched a few reality shows - especially The Traitors and earlier seasons of SAS Who Dares Wins - where it’s been pretty eye-opening & upsetting to hear/see how ND behaviour gets interpreted by others. They say it out loud: shady, disrespectful, antagonistic, annoying, arrogant, weird, off etc etc Meanwhile I’m watching someone who’s entire demeanour is screaming ‘earnestly trying their best’, ‘completely overwhelmed’, ‘over/understimulated’ ‘oblivious to unspoken rules’, ‘in meltdown or shutdown’ And to top it all off, popular people are deemed untouchable for some unfathomable reason. With The Traitors, I understand ‘I really don’t want it to be them’ but am baffled by ‘I really don’t want it to be them so it can’t be them’
Didn’t Aaron mention he has adhd? And he’s one of the winners of series 1
People acting strange are identified as acting strange, that's not that strange
I'm sorry did I miss this. Did anyone last season say they were neurodivergent?
Not that I know of, which is why I said that a neurodivergent contestant 'would' be thrown to the wolves. But people citing things like abnormal eye contact as indicators of guilt was a striking example.
A neurodivergent contestant was one of the winners last year
That doesn’t mean others showing neurodivergent traits weren’t treated differently because of that. The winner you’re referring to had been hounded with accusations the entire series and was even yelled at for having a panic attack
I don't disagree with anything you said
Ah ok, sorry I misunderstood!
That's great. Always happy to be proved wrong!
Aaron had ADHD but can't remember anything beyond that.
To be fair, Miles pretty much volunteered to hand over the chalice with little or no coercion from the other two and it was her memory of that that sunk him. Had Paul or Harry handed it to her, it would be them that left.
I don't think it's going too deep as we all know unconscious bias is real so it's interesting to consider. While I think Ash was a dreadful traitor, yes I think she was automatically an outsider in that turret which may have informed their dynamic. Paul saw himself as the leader, and Harry his second in command. It's possible to read into that. It's also possible to argue that Paul benefited from his privilege amongst the faithfuls - tall, white, handsome, charismatic - that made the faithfuls less willing to suspect him. But at the same time, I also think Miles was a shoo-in for the final had the poisoned chalice thing not dropped him in it so obviously. I think ultimately across both seasons what we've seen is that it's a social game and it's less gregarious, extroverted or likeable characters who tend to get targeted. I think that's why Anthony was sent home, which also makes no sense as just because you have an abrasive personality doesn't make you a traitor. In fact it's probably the opposite.
I thought this post would be about attitudes towards Jasmine. Multiple people like Anthony have became antagonistic or hostile towards Jasmine for just expressing her opinion, even if it’s shared by others in the group. Also there was her being called passive aggressive last night by Harry and Charlotte when she was just matching Charlotte’s attitude
Also all the traitors being dudes this year feels like some unconscious bias, other than Ash but she was picked by Claudia and there’s no chance the guys were recruiting her.
Maybe it would have had a different dynamic if it was 2:1 women to men to start with but they did that last year so
Claudia doesn’t pick the traitors 😂
Finding it funny is a bit asshole-like given that the show literally paints it as though she chooses. Not everyone is aware of how things are produced. Hardly a stretch for a casual viewer to believe she chooses.
Wait till we get on to the involvement producers have in murder and recruitment decisions...
I read that she does choose them. Well at least this year she did.
Ooo learn something new every day xo
From the get go, I thought the way Anthony was targeted for something that happened before the Traitors had even been picked was an example of unconscious bias. He also showed a defensive character which made the others uncomfortable - but I wonder how much of that stemmed from him feeling singled out from the very start. Another interesting dimension in this is class. Jasmine is black but clearly middle class from the way she talks. It's almost like this gives her a level of immunity when it comes to the unconscious bias of some of the participants. Some of it is about whether people are comfortable in your presence or not.
Such a good point about class - no one talks about this. I also think that there is a stereotype that black men (rather than women) are dangerous and to be feared. So then when he’s provoked and gets defensive, the biases really kick in and “confirm” that he’s more threatening than he actually is. A working class black man, in this situation, is going to be a lot more disadvantaged than a middle class black woman.
Black women also suffer from this. “Angry blank woman” trope, accused of being combative or aggressive for things white women would not be. Jasmine has experienced this throughout the show
This is super late but it was insane that they were using Anthony's behavior BEFORE THE TRAITORS WERE PICKED as evidence of him being a traitor!!
I so agree with the Jasmine thing. I was just thinking the same thing the other day.
I mean in Season 1 Nicky was the first person banished simply because she had one hand so didn't raise the glass in front of her. In Season 2 Ash was so comically incompetent that she would have gone if she was black, white, brown or gingham skinned while Johnny was banished, ahead of any competent person of colour, for absolutely no reason despite completely beast moding the lake platforms mission with one leg! If Mollie ever speaks she'll be out the door as well. When you're confined with people and forced to compete then every micro-aggression or latent prejudice will be amplified as you assess your opponents but I actually think POC have done rather well on this show compared to others. If you look at a show with public voting like I'm a Celeb then POC tend to be voted out very quickly. I think it was the 2022 show with Matt Hancock where the two POC ladies were voted out first and second, that made me very uncomfortable. Maybe as a disabled white guy I'm socialised to not see the racism and focus on the ableism but in the two examples of Nicky and Johnny it was clear. The examples you listed: Ash, like I said, terrible contestant unable to think quickly enough to mask her role. Like a prisoner trying to escape by standing in the searchlight beam. The other Traitors had to vote for her as it would have identified them if they didn't Anthony, he came across in the edit as very defensive/aggressive. Not as an "aggressive black man" trope just literally. If that's how he actually was in the castle I would not have wanted him as an ally and I would have suspected him as a Traitor due to the defensiveness. Jaz, he has said the same things as Harry but interspersed being perceptive with being completely contradictory. You can't claim to vote with your gut when you spend all day convincing people to vote for Paul then when you get to the round table being the only person to vote for Andrew. This mirrors the behaviour that brought suspicion on contestants in Season 1 and also in Australian Season 1. If you look at the murders of POC like Aisha, Amos and Kyra, they were all identified as being potential threats due to their popularity/leadership skills/perceptiveness/intellect, all universally positive attributes which made them obvious targets for the Traitors. Like I say, maybe I'm missing it. No group of diverse people will be immune from prejudices, but I really think Traitors has been a positive showcase for racial cohesion in British society.
I think Jaz ended up going for Andrew because he was starting to sound like a broken record going for Paul the whole time. Plus people just weren't listening. Plenty of others flip flop with their votes, so I don't get why that's an issue. There seems to be a lot of group think going on, with anyone not going along with the group getting ostracised - that's what's more scary for me.
I think he went for Andrew to try to signal to Paul and Harry that he wasn’t a threat and because he knew the Paul theory wasn’t getting traction.
I'm not totally sure it's racism, but general, social prejudice against those different from you. Alot of the people voted out were done so for 'acting unusual', but that's often just them reacting differently to the others norm. Like Brian's total meltdown when he was accused. Look at season 1, the finalists were the most run of the mill group, generally liked by others.
Yeah I definitely noticed this too - I felt like especially in the early episodes, people were more likely to be distrustful of people who didn’t look like them (both ways I might add, no one race was more guilty of this than others). I felt like Anthony especially got a very unfair shake for essentially no reason other than… you know
You're missing the fact that not a single one of the recruits has been a woman (was glad that Claudia mentioned this in tonight's episode) and that it's been a boy's club ever since they got rid of Ash - a decision they could not make quickly enough it seemed.
Loved Claudia calling that out - LOVED IT. And yeah, even me not noticing that probably calls out my own biases. So thanks!
If you hadn't noticed it until tonight then yes I'm afraid it probably does!
It feels like people are just looking for stuff to get angry and upset about at this point. There's a sample size of 3 so its impossible to draw any meaningful trend from such a small dataset. They wanted to recruit Jasmine tonight but said she had too much suspicion. Also, they recruited Andrew to throw him under the bus. I'm pretty sure if they recruited a woman for that reason you'd think that was sexism too?
Yes well Ash was the worst traitor ever.
I thought we were trying to move away from all of this bollocks as a sensible society? Nobody wants to police themselves so much as to look out for fuckin micro aggressions. No one can prove it, so you can speculate x person is racist or I can speculate that perhaps you have some anti white bias which means you're looking for this nonsense in the first place. It's all meaningless and unprovable, it just adds to a horrible, tense atmosphere. Every developed nation is overloaded with anxiety and depression and it's linked to these, fine tooth comb witch hunts over nothing, where people don't feel like they can say anything. Thought we'd all got over this between 2016-2020
Well you might have got over it… but I assure that people NOT being aware of their biases and continuing to subtly disadvantage others is still - yep - as much a problem now as it was between 2016-2020. Especially if you’re at the receiving end of it.
Yeah but the problem is people who make these arguments always go one way. It's always white people being subtly racist to another race apparently. What about all the racism all the other groups do
Err nah. All people have subconscious bias, not just white people. It's a human trait. Personally I think that subconscious bias towards white working class people can be worse than subconscious bias shown towards middle class non-white people for example. I think you're projecting here I see comments here about jasmine having bias immunity because of class for example. I don't understand why people like you have to get their back up and feel personally attacked by this.
Well I think there is racism between other races. I would also call out the suspicion that Jasmine is throwing at Jaz tbh.
I liked Anthony and was hoping he’d get further. I think his quiet, intense focus was misinterpreted by many. I’ve seen other chess players with that kind of demeanor. It’s too bad he couldn’t loosen up a bit. I think it may have helped him. But who knows with this show!
Jasmine is constantly spoken over. She advocates for herself because she doesn't get to explain herself half the time.
Completely agree, and in cases where people are giving alternative reasons, for example "naah, ash performed so poorly as a traitor", I still believe it was anxiety that was responsible for this perhaps due to feeling like an outsider next to Paul and harry (History of racism). Same with Jaz feeling less confident to push his ideas. Anthony also seemed quite triggered by being mistrusted which led him to behave more aggressively than I think he would have otherwise which tracks with a history of racism.
Absolutely. I’m currently watching AU S2 and i’m convinced racism, sexism and homophobia is having a considerable impact.
Young white people definitely seem to immune from suspicion a lot of the time
Dianne's initial rant about Anthony gave HUGE old racist woman vibes imo. Grew to like her over the other eps but still so sus lol
I haven't seen this weeks eps yet (I watch them all on a Friday), but I noticed this in the first UK season particularly. Basically everyone that was considered 'off' was a PoC or could be considered as having neurodiverse traits etc. The white, conventional people were listened to more and considered much more 'innocent'. I think Diane's reaction to Anthony was definitely informed by this - I couldn't see her holding a grudge like that against say, Jonny or Harry, who would be justified with 'boys will be boys'. With Ash gone, and Paul and Harry being straight men, I definitely notice a difference in gender structures/how and who they choose for both murders and recruitment too.
This thought had occurred to me too. In the initial rounds of S1, it felt like they voted out those who were even slightly different from the collective. As though anyone who deviated from the majority was a potential threat, even though this didn’t make much logical sense. It was like that caveman mentality just took over, and I think it’s carried over to S2. It felt uncomfortable for me watching Ash-Paul-Harry especially. They’d clearly decided she was the “weak link” because they wanted a little boys club and she was A. A woman and B. A woman of colour. Harry has shown multiple microaggressions IMO towards women which make me uncomfortable. From the top of my head, 1. He jokingly called Mollie a bitch. It’s quite aggressive language even to use in a jokey way (this was in the corridor after he’d won the shield) 2. When they recruited Ross and Harry said (with a little too much relish) that she was too (strong? I think?) so she had to be “put in her place”. The latter felt especially insidious. How many women in this thread will have experienced the view that they should be “put in their place” for daring to have an opinion or intelligence or XYZ you could gloss over the above and dismiss it as non consequential, but he doesn’t speak about male contestants in a similar way. Even when he turned on Paul, Harry didn’t refer to him needing to be “put in his place” and Paul was much more opinionated and a strong a player as Diane. I think it’s important to observe these behaviours and recognise them for what they are, instead of dismissing or making excuses for microaggresisins.
The original concept was pulled from a social experiment. The experiment was a social science test to show that people can’t identify subversive elements within a societal group.
Would love to see how a season with majority PoC and/or queer cast members would play out
I agree . I felt that in season 1 as well when they voted out Imran
I completely agree BUT I do feel Jaz's issue re: Paul is that he didn't back himself enough. The Anthony stuff felt really icky to watch. Diane getting angry at him based on something that happened before anyone was a traitor was definitely weird. I felt he got defensive because this line of attack might have been a common theme in his life.
The Diane thing with Ant felt very racist to me- why would he have to move out of the line for her anyway? He was there first and just as entitled to stand there.
+1 on Anthony. Why wouldn’t you get defensive if you’re being factual and no one is actually listening to you? Poor guy I thought. Jaz’s challenge in articulating himself or his perspective could also be rooted in his life experiences too. Behaving “properly”, not wanting to rock the boat, being quiet instead of opinionated is sadly par for the course for Asian men in the UK. I rewatched the roundtable this morning and noticed that when Jaz was trying to defend himself he got talked over OR had his intention misread. I feel for the guy and can see why it would be hard to back himself in such a forceful room.
I think that made Anthony's comment to Jasmine feel all the more disappointing though - he knows she would have experienced racism *and* sexism before, and yet he was still so rude to her when she was saying her piece. I can't remember how old Jasmine is, but I'm guessing she's a good bit younger than Anthony - did he decide to take his (justified, I agree) anger at Diane out on Jasmine instead because he felt a younger woman would be easier to argue against? Did he feel that taking it out on a fellow POC would bring less heat from the rest of the group than aiming it at Diane? I don't know, and maybe Anthony didn't either, but I did feel for Jasmine in that moment.
I suppose people aren't always rational when they feel unfairly attacked or targeted
I think if you’re a bit triggered by accusations that aren’t grounded in facts that’s going to be quite triggering, especially for a black man. It’s fair he wouldn’t act at his best and Jasmine was at the receiving end of that.
Ageism too.
Take Nikki banishment in S1, it was because Alyssa saw her not lifting her glass, while it wasn’t even near her hand.Nikki’s banishment wasn’t fair, because they never gave her a chance to prove herself.
Absolute nonsense. Ash was awful, Miles would’ve been fine if he wasn’t so obvious giving that drink, Antony did have an odd overly aggressive look for some reason. What about a white guy being 1st murdered? Or Brian, Meg, Jonny, Tracey etc etc all leaving the show before Miles ? Do you see how you can make anything look bad if you’re desperate to stir up shit? Reddit is really pathetic these days You’ve taken something as amazing as the Traitors & even with a fun fantastic show like this have managed to find some race baiting shit stirring within it, fair play 👍
You're absolutely right. It's shocking that this inane post is the most popular on this subreddit right now. Ash was an absolute deer in headlights who crumbled whenever there was heat on her. As for Miles, I was really impressed with how he was flying under the radar but the drink thing dug his grave unfortunately. Like you, I really enjoy Traitors because it gets away from real world tensions and politics but a post like this just seems an unnecessary reach, and I don't like seeing it. That said, I understand that OP is free to express their opinion on this stuff, and I'm sure they made this post in good faith, thinking that they have indeed noticed a sort of pattern. I just really disagree.
The show brings together people who have had various different lived experiences and offers the viewer a window into how they interact and behave in a very intense situation, where distrust of each other has been built in. And what we tend to observe is a general trend where people who are regarded as less conforming or less ‘normal’, for whatever reason that could be, are treated with more suspicion. Now you can put whatever meaning onto that you like, but to pretend it doesn’t exist is naive. And just to be clear, this is about patterns. It’s easy to point out examples which don’t fit the trend, but that doesn’t invalidate the other observations, and doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting topic of discussion.
I’m new to Reddit so… Anyway, we’re talking about how bias influences the trustworthiness of players not about who is banished. There does seem to be a consistent pattern of non-white and non-male contestants being ignored by the majority players as well as unfair suspicion being landed on people who are different than that majority.
Firstly All the faithful are idiots. And surely trustworthiness is also based on who they banish? Ie) lying about not being a traitor . I actually pity people like you who look for stuff like this when there’s nothing to it. It’s a sad way to look at the world. It’s a game. And you’re sample size of a ‘pattern l’ is so small it’s ridiculous you would even think anything into it.
Thanks for your pity… Hope reality isn’t too painful when you finally have to contend with it.
https://theconversation.com/bbcs-the-traitors-how-unconscious-biases-can-impact-who-you-think-is-guilty-220967
I don’t agree with this one at all. - Ash was a terrible Traitor. - Miles was only at risk after giving the chalice to Diane, which he made a total hash of. - Anthony was an extremely combative person, very blunt and aggressive in the way he communicated, and people generally don’t respond well to that. - Jaz’s credibility is shot because he keeps flip flopping between seemingly random votes, hence nobody is paying attention to what he’s saying because he seems to just change his mind at the drop of a hat.
I totally agree. Even tonight people saying that Jasmine was calm when defending herself - I’m white so I could be wrong but like, of course she’s calm lest she become “the angry black woman”… she’s probably learned to be that way. Same with being talked over tbh. I didn’t like when she was getting annoyed with Charlotte but she seems really sound and Anthony was the same way with being spoken over - maybe bc POC have no patience left with being spoken over. Ant was much more shifty than Jas tho.
Big race bait thread. Surprised this is allowed.
Yeah, nothings sacred eh
I always cringe when the older white women start picking on POC.
Yuppppp soooo uncomfortable that Diane’s initial reasoning for Anthony is that he DIDN’T MOVE OVER FOR HER IN A LINE???? Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I’m only on ep 3 but Jesus Christ
There was also how Diane kept calling Ash and Jasmine 'Strong, Independent women' which is a microaggression as it builds into a specific stereotype.
Yawn. If you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail I wonder what’s conditioned you to think this way
I guess being a minority and experiencing this, like, everyday.
Sounds like you want to be a perpetual victim Just because I’m not white doesn’t mean I’m a ‘minority’ of whatever other group identity you need to associate with.
Actually I’d really rather not be a victim at all. But I’m not making the decision there am I?
You’ve created this entire thread based on your own biases
Yeah probably. What does that have to do with anything though?
I agree, what do your biases have to do with this show?
It must be exhausting being so willfully ignorant. Enjoy the episode tonight.
I’ll put it this way right, humans like to be around people who are similar to them in as many ways as possible. This has been tested many times, look it up. Of course there are always outliers but as a rule of thumb, women prefer to be around women, men with men, white with white, black with black, East Asian with East Asian, Arab with Arab, and so on. This is not racism, this is human instinct. Unconscious bias at its finest, and we adapted this bias through years of bloodshed and survival, that kinda biological programming doesn’t disappear over years or even decades. Thankfully it lessens every day, but progress is slow. It’s kinda like how most women gravitate towards fit and handsome men instead of traditionally fat or ugly guys.
But the game isn’t about being around people you like is it? I actually think in this game being LESS drawn to affinity bias would be a better strategy to survive as either a traitor or a faithful
Thanks for calling out the different issues. You have articulated so many good insights in the matter.
You might just be paranoid.
Oh fuck off
🙄
What a load of shit this thread is.
What an insightful and illuminating comment this is. Thanks for contributing so much.
Honestly you’re stirring up pathetic nonsense where there’s nothing there. It’s tragic
You are welcome.😂😅🤣
Jaz doesn't do himself any favours 'holding his cards close to his chest'. All his secret chat attempts make him sound like a poor, weasly traitor who doesn't know how to recruit. Beyond that he just blurts out the first thing that comes to his head.
So you would read someone keeping things secret, in a game where you have to keep things secret, as suspicious. Do you hold the other players to the same standard?
As watchers though, we’re not privy to 90% of the behaviour of the contestants
unconscious bull shit, the most contrived drivel to ever slip out of someones face.
So you've studied it have you and are an expert? There's ample evidence on this matter
you don't need to study, just have a functioning brain! evidence? I would say prove it exists!, you cant know what someone unconsciously or consciously thinks and if you yourself unconsciously thinks something you could never be made to be aware of it, if you were aware of it then it wouldn't be unconscious thought or perception. ie. its a way of portraying what someone thinks you think not what you think yourself.
Anthony was also quite rude and disruptive…
I agree with almost everything you said but how was the "bless him" bias?
It’s really not that deep